Talk:Christianity/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about Christianity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

"self-defined" monotheistic?

I dont get it. How is Christianity classified as a monotheistic religion when it has three Gods? Trinity and stuff yet its classified as a monotheism.

Giovanni, as per edit summary, there is no Christian denomination that I know of which believes God and Jesus two be two seperate gods.

Even so, why not in "controversies" mention that Christianity is alleged to be polytheistic, most notably by many Muslims? That would be an appropriate place for it, and as a major world POV, it's something that should be briefly mentioned, perhaps with a link to Isa.

The "self-defined" is rather derisive in tone, and suggests that they are deluding themselves in this regard. Why not, "Christianity (as self-defined) claims to be a so-called "Monotheistic" religion..."? Yes, that's parody on my part, but illustrative of the feeling I get from this phrase. It's too off-key for the intro sentence, which is not meant to provoke cognitive dissonance, but only provide a clear framework for subsequent critical discussion.Timothy Usher 03:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, if what you say is true, then that supports my inclusion of "self-defined"--if the definition is limited to Christian denominations. Btw, its not true that all versions of Christians in the past held to only one god theory. See: http://religion-cults.com/heresies/second.htm I agree that the controversies section should make mention others interpretation of the various god-like creatures found in Chirstianity (Holy Ghost), their interpretatoin of the Trinity, etc. But, again, if there is such a controvery then this only highlights the need to qualify the definition, since it does not assume the POV of Christians unless it does so in a NPOV manner, i.e. "according to Christians...," which is the same things a "self-defined." Giovanni33 03:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved this comment from above (recently archived) since it belongs in this section, and makes the same point. Giovanni33 03:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Gio, that's a great Heresies link. Thanks. Of course that's Christian history, as in this sentence, we're saying what Christianity is now.

It's all very interesting stuff, and I don't object to any of its inclusion. The trouble I've seen on this site - and many others - is again that editors want to put their issues into the introduction, where it's guaranteed to be reverted - and to prove this, you can revert it again - I don't much like going over two if supportive editors aren't present - but you know it won't stick. At best, it will take a round-the-clock effort to keep it up for a few hours per day, if that, and aggravate other editors (and yourself) in the meantime.

There has been some pretty critical material (did Jesus exist?) and offbeat material (Is Jesus based on Osiris?) added in the past week, and it stuck because the editor was satisfied with making sure the reader was informed of it, rather than trying to spin the entire article to a point of view that I think he'd acknowledge doesn't come to most people's minds when they think "Christianity."

The intro should be utterly uncontroversial to the majority of readers. Let uncertainties, critical examination and associated dissonance come later.Timothy Usher 03:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but its currently controversial, depending on who you ask. That should not be the criteria, nor should it be who can get more editors on their side to revert to their version. The criteria should be based on NPOV policies and guidelines. And, if you read the rest of the contents of the link, they talk about also present day Christians who also hold to a many gods belief sytem, such as Mormonism, which I pasted below from the site.Giovanni33 04:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam is the most significant objector in this regard. Christianity as monotheism is almost part of the western (and English language) *definition* of monotheism. Whether it is truly philosophically monotheism is an interesting discussion. It just doesn't belong in the introduction.

As per your edit summaries, while NPOV is a good rule, all the wikipedia rules together don't come close to encoding the procedures necessary to create a good article. Rule one - it's an encyclopedia - is as close as it comes, but what this means isn't often discussed. Similarly, original research touches on my point, but not explicitly. Original point of view?Timothy Usher 04:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V are the three canonical WP policies. They overrule all others, but not necessarily themselves. Just for reference.

KV 04:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Certain groups of Christians (Catholics being the largest) believe that the Holy Spirit is active to this day and inspires/guides people such as the Pope... The only point I've ever wondered about is the "Christianity is a monotheistic religion" bit as I know some others (such as some Islamists) regard Christianity as polytheistic. I've always thought "Christianity defines itself as a monotheistic religion' would be closer to NPOV. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 22:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

From the above website, I even see that were are current surving Christians who hold to three gods, not one: http://religion-cults.com/heresies/second.htm

Tritheism: There are three Gods, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, against the Trinity. Present day Mormonism is tritheistic

Tritheism is the teaching that the Godhead is really three separate beings forming three separate gods. This erring view is often misplaced by the cults for the doctrine of the Trinity which states that there is but one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the trinity is, by definition, monothestic. That is, it is a doctrine that affirms that there is only one God in all the universe.

Tritheism has taken different forms throughout the centuries. In the early church the Christians were accused of being tritheists by those who either refused to understand or could not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. In the late 11th century a Catholic monk of Compiègne in France, Roscelin considered the three Divine Persons as three independent beings and that it could be said they were three gods. He maintained that God the Father and God the Holy Ghost would have become incarnate with God the Son unless there were three gods.

Present day Mormonism is tritheistic -- but with a twist. Mormonism teaches that there are many God's in the universe but they serve and worship only one of them. The godhead for earth is to them really three separate gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Father used to be a man on another world who brought one of his wives with him to this world - they both have bodies of flesh and bones. The son is a second god who was literally begotten between god the father and his goddess wife. The holy ghost is a third god. Therefore, in reality, Mormonism is polytheistic with a tritheistic emphasis. Giovanni33 03:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My POV: Being "monotheistic" is not a definition. Someone can not worships two "distinct persons" and then solves the problem by defining these two distinct persons to be one in an unknown way. I think the good way to check if Christianity is "monotheistic" is to ask a Christian "What does it mean for someone to be a monotheistic"? The meanings of these words all shape in world-view and practice of monotheistic. Fighting over definition of a word will lead us nowhere. --Aminz 03:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

They can when it come to religious beliefs. You can make up anything you want and define it as your own belief-there's no need for it even to be rational or logical. So, if I want to make up a belief that the bread and wine really does turn into flesh and blood, instantly, it doesnt matter what the microscope or chemical analysis says---its a matter of faith and belief in a dogmatic manner. Its true, because someone said its true and I was told not to question this truth, but to blelieve it blindly. Irrational? Yes. But that is the nature of the beast and in my POV, the dangers with religion. So, to respect NPOV its important to not state it as a fact all agree on but say, "according to x, y is..." It doesn't have to make sense, its religion. Now, if everone agrees a certain religion is monothesistic or polythesistic based on an obeservation of the reality (the facts) from different perspectives, then its pretty safe to state it as a fact, without violating NPOV policy. The problem with this article is that Christians want to have their Christian POV to be stated as a fact when its only their persepctive, yet they do not want to use language that reflect that. Intead they assert it as a truth that everyone has to accept as true, hence the frequent edit waring here and talk of a Chrstian cabal.Giovanni33 04:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Being only modestly well-informed about my own faith, I just yesterday read the Athanasian Creed, and from there the Shield of the Trinity. I found it a great articulation of my own conception of the trinity, but I don't know how useful it would be as an explanation to someone who didn't already believe it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom, Can you please help me understand how is it possible that Jesus be God and still he directs the father as God, says "trust in God, ALSO trust me", prays to God, changes his mind in some cases, learns and does not have the knowledge of the "hour"? I can agree that he was the second most important being in the world, having recieved all the authority in heaven and earth, but yet not God. --Aminz 04:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I need to go now, but let me ask another question which I will be thankful if you could answer. Let's assume that Jesus claimed God is three in one and he told his disciples about this. Shouldn't they ask him to explain these fascinating facts to him? It should have been definitely interesting for them to know. There should be a conversation about it in NT. It should be somewhere where Jesus tells them about the nature of God and tells them that this concept is hard to understand but should have trust in it, or at least he should illuminate his disciples. --Aminz 04:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Tom, Can you please help me understand how is it possible..." No, probably not:-) I don't really understand it myself, I just believe it. I could repeat Athanasius and say, "The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God." Or I could say the relation between the Son and the Father is non-transitive (if I'm using the term correctly); I could say something about what the Trinity is not, but not much about what it is. After all, it is unique. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense intended to our Orthodox colleages, but of course Jesus said no such thing. And at no point did he unambiguously, undeniably claim to be God - "I and the Father are one" is the closest, but that falls short of "I am God." Indeed, were it so, one would expect it to have been mentioned at every turn (as per our "last prophet" discussion).Timothy Usher 04:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense to you, Timothy, but it is not certain that he didn't say it or that he did not mean it when he said what you quoted (And, BTW, of course, the Son couldn't truthfully say "I am the Father"). There are also other verses relevant in this, especially the whole prologue of John's gospel. Also, such a clear statement by Jesus is not needed unless one subscribes to the extrabiblical principle of sola scriptura.

Let me finish by saying: Don't feed the trolls. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think fellow editor, Aminz, is a troll. Also, its not very nice or civil of you to say that.Giovanni33 09:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Then I do apologize. There used to be another editor of a similar persuasion and similar name that made his day by posting these kinds of questions to Christians on talk pages. Having looked a Aminz' page now I agree that he does not seem to be one. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the subject to the Controversies section. I had to mention Egypt again to pull in a parallel, not knowing of another. But if there is a another parallel, feel free to replace it. I think there should be some parallel included to explain the Christian argument. I also have some information from Hall which may do good for another controversy, involving whether God could have a son, based upon God needing to have a mate and procreate in that manner. KV 04:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, KV, the Egyptian parallel is no parallel. There is no parallel. The Egyptian religion, as well as Hindusim and other religions, Greek philosophy too, had an idea about all realities originating with a single entity. So all the different deities are seen as manifestations of this "Prime cause", which how ever was often considered impersonal and inapproachable (Greek philosophy). In Egypt, various local gods competed on filling that role, and the temples drew up various genealogies: Ra winning out in his town Heliopolis, Ptah winning out in his Memphis, Amun winning out in his Thebes - in the end Amun prevailed by intendifying with Ra, being merged into Amun-Ra.

This system of manifestations is unthinkable in the Jewish and Christian mindset which holds God to be one and enternal, without beginning or end, and also as a person who can be addressed.

The closest parallel (in the end it isn't one) is in fact an Islamic one: Muslims consider the Quran to be uncreated and eternal, which is the same that Christians believe about Jesus Christ in his divine nature. The difference is that Muslims, lacking the insight of Greek philosophy, don't draw the conclusion that this makes the Quran "of one being" with God.

Be that as it may and as hard it may be to accept, but there there is no parallel for the Trinity.

I would like to point out that 1) Judaism does not accept God to be a person who can be approached, but rather that God is a force. And 2) That is precisely the parallel in question...... that they are all ONE. In Hinduism and Egyptian religion, probably in Greek as well, all of those gods and goddesses were one. I can cite that if you'd like.

KV 11:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out, KV, that you are extremely mistaken about Judaism. It certainly believes in a personal God, not in some impersonal force. And since both today's Jews as well as people in the Bible pray to that God he is also approachable. I have never heard of Plato praying to the "idea of the Good" or Aristotle to the "prime mover".

It is precisely not the parallel: various religions have great numbers of deities, some based on localities, some on natural phenomena, or on moral values (the Romans were good in this) - great numbers of deities and at one point believers considered all these deities mere manifestations of the one supreme god/force/prime mover etc. So no need to cite anything, we don't disagree on that.

What we disagree on is the Christianity, which is not like all these other religions. Hence no parallel. Firstly, Christianity is based on the Jewish "idea" of God as eternal, omnipotent, personal, approachable, which different to pagan deities that all came into existence at one point of time. Secondly, Judaism and Christianity do not believe in a God manifesting in various, even countless forms or in nature - but in on a being distinct from all creation. Hence Judaism's and Islam's opposition to the idea of the incarnation. Thirdly, Christianity does believe in one instance of God becoming man, in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ is seen as the eternal and uncreated Word of God, as well as the Holy Spirit is considered the eternal and uncerated Spirit of God. Hence Word and Spirit are seen as "of one being" with their "source", God the Father, and hence are considered one God. It is a sort of internal dynamic within God. Now, non-Christians might consider this view absurd but that is the belief of Christians - maybe absurd (which is POV) but not tri-/polytheistic. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This concept of God/Godhead and monotheism is one of the great mysteries of those who worship the God of Israel. Gio you had a colorful explanation of what Mormons believe about God, but as a LDS, I would never and have never expressed myself in that fashion. I suspect that churches teach a doctrine and their members easily believe something different. Latter-day Saints (Mormons), IMPO, worship one God, the Father, through His Son, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is the communicator of God in many ways. Surely He can speak directly do us, his children, but the vast majority of the time it is through the Holy Spirit. I tend to think that I strive to worship the same God that Jesus prayed to in the Garden of Gethsemane. They are one Godhead, though they are three distinct personages. The Nicene Creed, from most theologians with whom I have spoken, is a mystery to understand. I think it is beyond the understanding of most, if not all, people. The Nicene Creed is a product of the 4th century. It strives to instruct its adherents in a way that attempts to provide an understanding of an incomprehensible subject. It is a mystery. They are three, but one. Though I can understand whay Muslims would say that Christians are polytheistic; for them there is one God, end of the story. No need for one to atone for the wages of sin, no need for a sacrifice of the Son of God. Sometimes we need to acknowledge how things look to other people, though we would say things differently and believe differently. Some people say Mormons are polythesitic, to which I disagree, but I understand why they say it. Just as the Bible mentions other gods, Israel worshipped One God. LDS worship One God and the vast majority of Christians worship One God. Saying one "self-defines" or similar statement does not cast dispersions, but is a statement of fact. I can't tell you the numbers of times I have been forced to write that Mormons are self-described as Christians. Is it a pain in backside? You bet. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Just how prevalent is the view that Christianity is polytheistic? From a countering systemic bias point of view we may have to consider using a phrase such as I suggested above if it is shown that there is a significant world view somewhere that does not accept Christianity's own defininition. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 09:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, this view is prevalent among Muslim apologist/missionaries. It is a rhetoric ploy to combat Christianity. It is not factual. As I have explained above, Christianity's view of the Trinity might be termed absurd (which however is POV) but not polytheistic or tritheistic. I don't go over to the Islam page and claim that Islam is bitheistic because of the Islamic stance on the Quran (explained even further up). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You say it isn't, they say it is. That's the time to invoke the NPOV rule. The article isn't allowed to pick one side of this dispute and claim its the "right" side. Its time in the article to present both sides and let the reader pick, while the article makes no claim as to which is correct. Drogo Underburrow 23:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV means representing an objective or neutral view, not accounting for the views of rival religious worldviews. Christianity is monotheistic: the nuances of this term are dealt with (or should be) at the article on monotheism. Myopic Bookworm 09:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not the time to invoke the NPOV rule. NPOV doesn't mean throwing in every crazy "opposing" view; it is as if the article on Napoleon would have to include the view that Napoleon was not an historical character, but was rather purely fictional, simply because it is another POV, and to maintain NPOV, opposing views must be allowed in, no matter how nonsensical or contrary-to-fact they may be. "He said, she said" cannot be the basis for an encyclopedia. --Rekleov 14:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

New version of orthodoxy and heresy

I fixed the information, adding citations from reputable sources. The one that gave the most information was an old college textbook done by historians. The other was a book that's bias would only be in apologism for Christians, so I don't see Str having a problem with that book's bias. I of course used the biased source where it is speaking against its bias. This version clarifies orthodoxy and heresy, and the origins of both. And yes, it was the Catholic/Mainstream Christian biased source that told me that Constantine was involved in the debates. I plan on using them more in the persecution section.

There should be no doubt that these authors are better than Str's opinion as far as verifiability goes.

I still need to figure out how this all weaves in to convert it to proper reference format, citebook wasn't cutting it for this. Anyone able to help convert it would be appreciated.

KV 19:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So, you are using biased books (again). I don't like it. I am for serious historical scholarship. Some problems with the new version:

It bloats the passage way beyong what is needed here.
It unwarrantedly introduces CE, indicating a lack of care for consensus.
"the various churches of Early Christianity shared a common creed, but actual beliefs varied widely" is sheer and utter nonsense. The churches (in plural) that existed where the local churces, say, the church of Rome, of Alexandria, of Corinth, of Antioch etc. There was no common creed until the 4th century (Nicene Creed), though baptismal creed basically were similar in their structure. If there was one creed, how can actual beliefs vary widely.
The number of bishops present at Nicaea is commonly given as 318. But again, this passage is not a supposed to be a retelling of the Nicene Council.
"Prior to Nicaea, the Western churches did not simply obey Rome and its interpretations" - actually there is nothing simply about it and it is still like "which the Eastern churches still did not ^[1]" - again nonsense, the Eastern Churches at times obeyed Rome. The suggested continuity is false.
Constantine cannot have "authoritively control church policy", as if he had the right to do so. But, supposing you have used the wrong word, it still overstates reality.
"was officially declared" - another appearance of the strange word offically - how do you declare something unoffically heretical?
The last bit, KV, I am sorry to say it, betrays your complete lack of knowledge in this field. You write, basically, that after Arianism other sects were condemned as well. You name Gnostics (2nd century), Simon Magus (1st century), Marcionism (2nd century), Ebionites (2nd and 3rd century), Montanism (2nd century). Arianism, as you well know, existed in the 4th century, when all these other heresies were already "cold coffee". But not the listing of heresies is at fault - the problem is that you have turned a passage on theological dispute and the process of condemning heresies into a not very well written note about Nicea and Constantine.

So all in all, you take a passage that needs no improvement (IMHO) and turn it upside down and into a hotch potch of half-baked stuff. For those who want to see the diff nonetheless, here it is: [2] In German we call this "Verschlimmbessern" (roughly: Im-worse-prove). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Str, I am not using biased books. I made one citation that had a bias, not in reporting facts, but rationalizing why things happened. Such as suggesting that the attempt to reraise Paganism after Constantine failed because Paganism couldn't offer the theological liberty of Christianity. The book is well respected for it's facts overall, and its bias is towards your view, not mine. It's biased towards your view, but not as much as you. If you really want to disagree with them about how many bishops attended Nicaea and what date it was held on, that's really petty. KV

KV, you yourself called them biased. I wouldn't call them biased but having a certain view but that goes for any book. It is those lacking knowledge of historiography that use the term "biased" as an argument. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I called one source biased, and I noted in what way they were biased, and used them in quoting something that bias will not change the viewpoint of. It's called disclosure. I noted that the source was biased in such and such a sense, and then noted that I did not use it in a manner that would allow it's pro-Christian bias.KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The passage is not bloated, that much had to be explained to give a clear view of what heresy was and its relationship to orthodoxy. Which your explanation was inaccurate, uncited, and sure seemed POV if you read in between the lines.

Sure it's bloated. It almost doubled the extent, while adding no relevant information and infantilizing the wording. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's larger, and it gives plenty of relevant information, and it could be smaller had you not required that size of explanation to come to the same conclusion. Now it's there, fully documenting it all, for anyone who disagrees to see the highly cited and explained reason as to why that is true.KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it introduces CE, a PC, NPOV time scale. It starts at the same time as AD, but rather than stating Anos Dominus (Year of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ), it simply says Common Era. I see no need for consensus on this matter, and it's hardly a reason to scrap the entire version.

Go and read WP stance on the AD/CE issue. Also, go and read some Latin orthography before you are writing nonsense in another language. No it's not my reason for criticizing or reverting your version, but it shows your disregard for the quality of the article and consensus of editors. BTW, PC is not an argument but a mental malfunction ... or a computer. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that they had an official stance, would you like to link it?KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the creed, the source is a college textbook written by two guys with PhD's, one in Archaeology, the other in History, used by accreditted institutions. They know what they're talking about. For example, there was a shared creed that Jesus had come, taught, was crucified, buried, and raised again. However, some people like the Arians thought that Jesus was fully mortal and not at all divine. Others like the Gnostics preferred other gospels than the proto-Catholics. Some believed that Judas betrayed Jesus, others that Jesus asked Judas to turn him in. Some believed that Mary Magdeleine was Jesus' wife and closest apostle, whereas most didn't believe her an apostle at all, and Jesus celibate. All of this without disagreeing with the basic creed described above. I suggest we use the scholars in this area, and not your own personal opinion. KV

Creed might be okay colloquially but it is better to be precise. One cannot share the same creed and vary widely in their beliefs. Your description of the Arians is wrong ... and also nonsense: the ones that belief that Jesus was fully mortal are called orthodox Christians (including Eastern Orthodox, Catholics etc) - only few ever denied that (some branches of Monophysitism, Docetists etc.) Arians did not believe that JC as "not all divine". No one in antiquity believed that the Magdalene was Jesus' wife (that's modernity with its obession with romantic love). And the Gnostics would very well have disagreed with what you call the creed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure that the scholars know absolutely nothing....... I mean, they're just PhDs while you have a highschool diploma? An Associates degree? Surely, your uncited wording is better. Str, if you disagree, find a source that is better than a college textbook that devotes several chapters to Christianity alone, and its impact on Western civilization, written by two PhDs in the area in question. When you can do that, then you have a leg to stand on. You cannot refute PhDs specialized in the area by simply saying they're wrong.KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the obedience to Rome. The statement in no way says that the East didnt' obey Rome ever, it says they didn't, even after Nicaea, automatically obey Rome. And of course it comes from accredited scholars, not your personal opinion. KV

That's an example of infantilizing the text. No one claims they automatically obeyed Rome (by which you probably mean the Pope - if you want to then say so). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was clarifying what is meant by obedience to Rome. The scholars found it important to note that they did not automatically accept Rome's authority on all things because it played a large role in a little thing called the Great Schism.KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

On Constantine.... Well I was paraphrasing, the original words said he "controlled Church policy with an iron fist". We can use another word if necessary, but it's necessary to realize the sudden fusion of church and state at that moment in history, which the other source agrees with, citing pros and cons of the arrangement. Christianity became the authorized state religion under Constantine, soon to become the only allowed religion aside from Judaism. The Church had changed.

It is interestind hence I included it in a proper form. But your book is certainly wrong on this. Constantine did not control with an iron fist - despite his interferences in the mid-30s. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, find a souce more reputable than the highly reputable source I found if you wish to disagree with facts. Your own assertions do not counteract PhDs whose work can be verified.KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As for unofficially declaring someone a heretic, since heresy means wrong doctrine, I could tell you right now that you are a heretic, as several of the early churches accused each other of. However, it wasn't authorititive, it wasn't official. There had yet to be a general agreement on what is heresy and what is orthodox (right-thinking). Nicaea gave that official stance. KV

I was just stating that "officially" is another one of these infantile words some people like to use. But that they don't actually mean anything. They hurt the article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Infantile? No, it's called clarification. There was a big difference in someone calling someone a heretic with their own bishop behind them in 200 CE and someone calling someone else a heretic in 400 CE with the majority of the Christian churches from across the Roman Empire backing up their statement.KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the logic of when such heresies arose, the Nag Hammâdi find which contained most of the Gnostic gospels we knew was buried in the 4th century, not in the 2nd. The cause for burying it was that there were people from the Church looking to destroy any such texts! These so called "heresies" may have risen in the 2nd century CE, but they were still around in the 4th century. Arianism was still being chased around in 1000 CE, people did not give up on it declared a heresy or not. Arianism was the primary target of Nicaea because, according to the Christian text, the violence that erupted between Arius' followers and the Bishop of Alexandria's followers. The others weren't as important at the time.

Only, in the 4th century the Church did not have to deal with the Gnostic threat as an internal heresy - it had been confronted in the 2nd century and by now was a rival but no longer a threat for the internal continuity and truth of the Gospel. Arianism didn't cause any violence in Alexandria, Arius had only few followers. The trouble was: some of them were bishops (two in Libya, some in Syria, some in Asia Minor). And BTW your statements here actually contradict what you wrote or implied in the text. PS. Do you think your exclamation marks impress anyone? Str1977 ^{(smile back)}

And how about you cite your references, since you want the change. And btw, where does it contradict? You cannot simply say it contradicts without explaining it.KV 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The new version is factually accurate, NPOV, and verifiable. People can check over what I wrote, see where I found it, and see if it says just that. As per Wikipedia policy.

KV 16:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The new version is partly factually incorrect or misleading but most importantly: it is extremely badly written. Don't make our reader gringe. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Str, I have you completely cornered on everything else, so you decide that you'll make some claim to stylistic error to find any way to hide the facts you don't want out there. AnnH is a linguist, surely she could simply reword what I have to make it a good read without removing any information as you did (in addition to attributing a citation to something that it didnt' apply to). I haven't seen her reword it, nor anyone else. You're the only one claiming that the wording is poor, and that's because you don't like the content, and you can no longer argue that it is nonfactual or from an inreputable source.

KV 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not cornered at all. I have stated my case and stick to it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok Str, what is the first step you want to take towards arbitration? WP:DR#Further_dispute_resolution has options.

KV 23:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Str. The previous version was hammered out by a number of people with quite different approaches, and although not entirely agreed, at least made sense and gave accurate facts. The present text looks as though it has been written by one person who can't spell very well and has just read a very general college history book. While some further discussion may be needed, I don't see why such a relatively superficial piece of writing should stand in the article meanwhile. Myopic Bookworm 12:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with Str and Bookworm, and I regret that I have been so busy in the last few days that I didn't get more involved in this. AnnH ♫ 12:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The old version was in violation of the three main Wikipedia policies, outright.

KV 16:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

one creed?

KV, it would be helpful to go ahead and name the policies. While I think KV's version is somewhere between misleading and inaccurate, KV is right to ask for a citation or three to the contrary. It won't be hard to find, but it needs to be added before the whole thing is fixed. However, it would also help to clarify that by "one creed" we mean a general "shared set of beliefs" rather than a specific creed with a specific text, like the Nicene or Apostles' Creed.

KV wrote above, For example, there was a shared creed that Jesus had come, taught, was crucified, buried, and raised again. However, some people like the Arians thought that Jesus was fully mortal and not at all divine. Others like the Gnostics preferred other gospels than the proto-Catholics. Some believed that Judas betrayed Jesus, others that Jesus asked Judas to turn him in. Some believed that Mary Magdeleine was Jesus' wife and closest apostle, whereas most didn't believe her an apostle at all, and Jesus celibate. All of this without disagreeing with the basic creed described above. I suggest we use the scholars in this area, and not your own personal opinion. KV

These gnostics do not all agree that Jesus "came, taught, was crucified, buried, and raised again." The Arians thought that Jesus was a highly exalted being created near the beginning of time by God, but not God himself. Regarding those who believed that Jesus asked Judas to turn him in, the Gospel of Judas doesn't record any events after Jesus' arrest. It earlier suggests that Jesus needed to die on the Cross to be free of his physical body, so it's unlikely that this group would have believed in a bodily resurrection, as that would have been a reimprisonment to them. The same is true of many of the gnostics; they would have supported perhaps a spiritual resurrection, but not a physical one. Suggesting the resurrection was only spiritual, was the gnostics' attempt to adapt Christianity and make it more palatable to their listeners. Most Christians did and do include Mary Magdalene as an apostle, calling her and the other first witnesses to the resurrection the "apostles to the apostles." As Str said, belief that she was Jesus' wife or lover is a very modern idea not found in antiquity, despite Gnostic accounts of her having received other "secret teachings." This is pretty basic stuff. I'll try to get sources soon, if no one beats me to it. Wesley 16:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Mediation procedures have begun. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-15_Christianity

I suppose we'll have to finish discussing this there.KV 18:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I trust some detractors of my version might want to comment on the page.

KV 04:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I really should read this whole talk page. I just became aware of this; I've only recently become active on this page, so I cannot say whether or not your version is correct. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Those who claimed to be"

Giovanni33, re your change: "Christianity began within the Jewish religion among those who claimed to be followers of Jesus of Nazareth". Is there any basis for doubt in this regard? It sounds scare-quotey and snarky, without adding anything useful.Timothy Usher 18:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is doubt. There should always be doubt based on what is known and what is merely thought to be probable. I simply like to state the facts. We don't even know if Jesus was a real historical person, or that those who claimed to be his followers didn't infact invent him--at least invent him in the form that they did, in their stories of him. In anycase, its simply a matter of fact that these people claimed to be followers of this character named Jesus. Its not scary at all. That is what they claimed and its a matter for personal belief to beleive their claims or not. I choose not to believe their claims without evidence. But, Im happy to report what they claimed. I've seen this language in other reference sources. Also, in reverting this edit, you reverted all my other language improvements--twice. This is careless, blind reverts and shows a lack of consideration. Giovanni33 02:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Claimed" is a weasel word. There is not reasonable doubt that Christianity began among Jesus' followers. (This wording even leaves room for those that think that only some of his followers started the thing). There is no reasonable doubt of Jesus' historicity. Repeating the same stuff time and again shows a lack of consideration too. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If everything is in doubt because the historical sources are questioned then the sentence should read "Christianity claimed to begin within those who claimed to be part of the Jewish religion among those who claimed to be followers of the person who claimed to be Jesus of Nazareth" XXX

Dear whoever, that's a big "if" - the historical sources are not questioned in the way you think. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Monotheism needs its own page

I think whether or not Christianity is monotheistic, or whether any religion can be other than monotheistic, is better discussed in context at monotheism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, if there there enough information for its own article, but it should not state as a fact what Christianity is simply because Christians want it to be that way, according to their own POV. Others can look at the religion and dispute the definition. So, to cure this problem it should say, "According to Christians..." This is the way to solve it and what I tried to do before but Str1977 said that only Christians get to say what it is, and Christians know best. Now that Drogo is pushing for the same NPOV treatment, maybe this time proper qualifcation in the language will stick.Giovanni33 02:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, your sentence, "According to some Moslems, Christianity is a polytheistic religion which worships three false gods", aside from being wildly misplaced (the actual Muslim point of view is represented further in the article), is inaccurate: Muslims do *not* hold that the Christian God is a false God, only that Christians shouldn't worship Jesus or Mary alongside him. The Holy Spirit doesn't come up, so it's unclear what the Islamic position would be - I'd guess that it'd be that this is just God.

It is likewise false to state that Christians belief that there is more than one god. As monotheism is defined as the belief in one God, there should be no debate here. The prevailing belief is that Jesus is God, not that he is another God - in fact, I've never heard anyone propose the latter.

Suppose we have a branch of Islam which holds that the Black Stone is God. Are they now polytheists, in that they worship both God and the Black Stone? By the logic you've advanced here, they would be: 1) The black stone isn't really God 2) such that they worship two entities, not one as they believe 3) hence they are polytheistic. There are many more possible, increasingly ridiculous-sounding examples. Ultimately, your re-definition of monotheism requires us to decide what God is to determine when the use of the term is appropriate without hedging, which is beyond the scope of our mission (and, I'd add, our expertise) here on wikipedia.Timothy Usher 03:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm pretty sure most Christians don't think you should worship Mary either....... often she is revered as a saint, perhaps the greatest of saints, but she's not God according to Christianity.

KV 03:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The Qur'an criticizes the worship of Jesus and Mary alongside God. Whether any Christians were actually doing this is debatable, and comes up often in criticism of the Qur'an, as it suggests a misunderstanding on Muhammad's part, critically undermining the perfect, unadulterated divine origin of the Qur'an.

I recently read Muir despairing that overzealous Nestorian monks, whom Muhammad spent some time with in his youth, had gone overboard in their veneration of Mary, even speculating that Muhammad would have become a great Christian thinker had he understood the doctrine correctly.

Observe, also, that worship of human beings doesn't actually require that one think them gods.Timothy Usher 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't have to think them a god, but Christianity holds fast to only worshipping God, and so they wouldn't worship Mary, who is not God.

But on Mohammed, it doesn't undermine the Koran if he misunderstood Christianity since the Koran is solely words he spoke while blacked-out, and according to Muslims, God (or possibly an angel, I'm not clear on that) speaking through him. It wasn't his thought, though there is a text like that.

KV 04:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It does, in that God is thought both omniscient and honest, such that he cannot be have unaware of Christian doctine, and that he would not misrepresent it. Thus, either the concept of God must be wrong, or Gabrial and/or Muhammad must have corrupted the message. Either allowance is fatal to the absolute certainty that the Qur'an is, in every last respect, the word of God as he's understood.Timothy Usher 05:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You are asserting that Islam is a false religion on the talk page of the article on Christianity? Why? By asserting Islam is false, does this in some way mean they don't believe that Christians worship multiple gods? Since they do, its wrong to state that Christianity IS a monotheistic religion, since its a matter of opinion, others believe it isn't. - Drogo Underburrow 06:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"You are asserting that Islam is a false religion..." Not at all. A religion, like a text or a scientific theory needn't be entirely true to avoid being called "false."

Further, such arguments can't be in the introduction. No other major religion includes such a rebuttal in its intro. Are we to add to the intro of Islam the reasons why Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, Communists and atheists respectively think it not the way?Timothy Usher 07:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the Qur'an, Christians have strayed from strict monotheism. Moslems believe that Christianity is not a monotheistic religion. Drogo Underburrow 05:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is becoming apparent that saying Xty IS monotheistic is POV. The easiest solution is to just drop the word from the description in the intro & later on mention that Xns view Xty as monotheistic, while others do not --JimWae 05:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. When I tried that, however, I got reverted. Why don't you try, maybe they like you better. Drogo Underburrow 05:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I like you both equally. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not see a problem stating that Christains state they are monotheistic. I do not agree that we need to clarify that other groups disagree because of the depth of that conversation. Looking at the accusation of Islam in particular one comes to understand that they find the concept of the Trinity incomprehensible; that a triune God makes no sense. From there you drop into some deep waters of theology.

This article does suffer from a resistence to stating Christians believe xyz. Often there is an attempt to present things as fact. This is just one case to support that. In closing, I recommend providing the contrary arguments of people who may just not understand the concept of the Trinity. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

After a bit of edit warring I made a simple edit that states "most Christians believe firmly they are monotheistic". This sentence is very choppy; however, this introduction has taken uncounted hours of negotation to get to where it was. I find it silly that because Islam disputes Christain claims to monotheism that we now have to bend over backwards to take care of another religions concerns in an article about Christianity. Surely readers will assume that an article on Christianity will understand that the article is about Christian beliefs and is not taking a side. This kind of dispute is best handled later in the article. Now having said the above, I still find it acceptable to clarify in the article that Christians believe...x, y, and z.

I have also requested the edit war participants to refrain from further edits and focus on gaining concensus on the discussion page. Let's make this a simple issue and not complicate it any further. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Most Xns believe that Jesus is one of three persons in a Divine Trinity that is one God.--JimWae 07:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you. At first I debated bringing up the concept of the Trinity, but I think it would make a better sentence/statement. Although the concept of the Trinity is a 4th century realization, it is argued by some to be foundational for all groups identified as Christian (I would disagree with it, but understand those who do support it). Should we wait for other comments and see if this suggestion gains concensus? Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole debate seems to me to be another mad piece of either political correctness or fake neutrality. Christianity is perceived as monotheistic not only by its adherents, but also by neutral commentators. It is only adherents of another religion who try to cast doubt on it. What would happen if the main page on every other religion had to carry a rider pointing out that most Christians consider it to be a false religion? Myopic Bookworm 09:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a case of real neutrality. If you were to ask any of a billion Muslims if they thought Christians worshiped only one god, their answer would be "no"; Christians worship Jesus as a god, and something called the Holy Spirit as well. Catholic and Orthodox Christians worship any number of saints, and the Virgin Mary, as demi-gods. Christians say that Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are all one God. But their saying so, doesn't make it so. It makes it their opinion. In matters such as religious beliefs, where there are different sides, NPOV is critical. We must be impartial, saying who believes what, without telling the reader who is right and who is wrong. Therefore, it's correct to say that Christians believe their religion is monotheistic, and wrong to say that Christianity IS monotheistic. - Drogo Underburrow 10:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Drogo. Islam generally believes that Christianity is not monotheistic, and there are non-religious observers who, noting the trinity, Virgin Mary, and the countless saints and angels, agree. To say that Christianity is monotheistic is as POV as insisting that Jesus was the son of God and not just the prophet who preceded the final prophet, Mohammed. It's not up to us to weigh in on whether Christianity or Islam is correct on doctrinal matters such as these, just to report them neutrally.

I therefore support the statement that most Christians view their religion as monotheistic, which is accurate and neutral. If we could clarify the "most", that would be even better, so long as it doesn't once again put us in the position of judging doctrine. Al 12:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith and think of a reason why Str77 changed the article just now to say the opposite of what we are saying here in chat, but I can't think of one. All I can think of is that he prefers edit warring and has no rational defense for his action. Drogo Underburrow 12:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried "Christianity defines itself as a monotheistic religion centred....etc" on the talk page here a few weeks ago but no one was interested. Looking at it from a countering systemic bias POV we should give a neutral definition as there obviously significant numbers who disagree that it is monotheistic. Sophia 12:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to interject, if we're going on the idea of "What alot of people say about a religion who don't belong to it" should determine traits, does this mean the Scientology article should start "Scientology is a compleatly bonkers religion of stupidity", because im pretty sure a whole lot of people think that. Now seriously, Islam is like many religions that want everyone else to be false and only them to be right, so what are the chances that their opinion on the trinity is either authoritative or objectively awesome or whatever? I mean come on, some translations of the Qu'ran call Christians out specifically as heading for Hell, I don't think their opinion really means that this article should call us polytheists. The trinity is mostly recognized as the worship of one God in three forms/persons/beings whatever, im sure it wouldn't be hard to dig up like 10 or 20 statements of faith from various groups affirming this, and I think I could grab even more material from oneness pentecostals about monotheism, that's even more obviously monotheistic. The Bible is quite clear in many places that there is but one God, most Christians I would assume try to be quite clear that there is one God, how is this problematic? Homestarmy 12:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

None of what you say changes the fact that Muslims believe that Christianity isn't monotheistic, and as long as there are two sides to an arguement, Wikipedia articles have to stay neutral. So, its wrong to say "Christianity IS monotheistic" which says that Muslims are wrong. - Drogo Underburrow 15:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The hobbit has a good point. Sophia 15:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Then it is equally wrong for people to add Scientology in the "New religious movements" category, as many people believe Scientology is just a twisted sort of business. It would also be wrong for Islam to say that it is an Abrahmaic religion, as some apologetists i've seen argue that the Arabian people did not, in fact, descend directly from Abraham at all. It would also be wrong for the Psycology article to be listed in relation to science, as Scientology is of the opinion (A compleatly ridiculous one by the way, but irregardless, an opinion) that Psycology is basically murdering people every time they have clients. Muslims may believe that Christianity is polytheistic, even though they are compleatly wrong, and we should note that they believe it is polytheistic. We should further note that most Christians consider the trinity to simply be referring to one God in 3 forms/figures/whatever, and that the Bible states in many places about how God is the only God, and that pretty much every single group in the world who calls themselves Christians worships but a single God, so therefore, it is monotheistic. There is no reason why Islam should get to define Christianity, just as im sure I would be most quickly banned for going to every single other religion article on Wikipedia and saying "Fundamentalist Christians, (and there are many in the south it seems) believe your religion is false, therefore, I shall note that your religion is false in the intro". There are 2 or more sides to almost every single thing in the entire world and trying to make them all right would make Wikipedia nothing but a long, contradictory rant, what about color blind people who see red as green, should the red article say "The color red, also known to many as the color green...." and what about the Natural Selection article, should it say "Natural selection, known to be false by a large amount of Christians and Muslims...."? or perhaps the Abortion article, should it say "Abortion is the brutal murder of helpless unborn children and it is the explusion of a fetus from the womb which may or may not feel any pain and may or may not be a human...."? Noting people's POVs is a good thing. Trying to make them all right at the same time is not. Homestarmy 15:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy is that opinions not be stated as facts. Nobody is saying the article should say Xty is NOT monotheistic. Your examples & your arguments are off target. --JimWae 15:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Homestarmy.Timothy Usher 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you any idea how many people would disagree with one or another part of the articles Earth and Universe on religious grounds? Yet there is basically no mention of their beliefs. Evolution mentions controversies later in the article, and here, the attitude of the article is clear. Analogous cases may be found across all subjects.

One problem is, what to do when something - e.g. that Christianity is monotheistic - is a matter of objective fact, as shown above, yet there is a significant body of opinion which doubts it based on misinformation.

Perhaps the first step is to put forth a respectable academic source. Even so, common sense must apply. If one finds a scholar who writes, “Christianity is not so much a religion as a social institution,” do we then have to hedge “religion” - after all, some don’t consider it one.

There is an arbitrary number of such objections, limited only by the attitude the editors take to the article: is our goal to inform, or to obscure?

The most informative approach is to flat state general, broadly-accepted truths, followed by discussion of the particulars and associated controversies.

The Muslim objection is significant enough to merit inclusion; the question is only where, and how.Timothy Usher 16:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy and Homestarmy, you both want to re-write the basic rules that Wikipedia operates under, and that is not allowed. Wikipedia has a method of solving this problem, and its called NPOV for short. You can either read it and learn it and support it, or you force us to explain it to you here on the talk page. I promise you, if you read, knew, and supported NPOV, we would not be having any discussion, the issue would magically go away. Drogo Underburrow 16:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first rule is, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. That's not just about what wikipedia is not, but about the way articles are structured, topicality, what degree of qualification is appropriate to each section, and many other rules that aren't stated here. It's an unfortunate fact that it's much easier for you to cry NPOV! than it is for others to appeal to the details of the application of common sense, to wit: we shouldn't be going into intros and hedging them to deal with every conceivable objection. NPOV for its part, does not state that every point of view must be given an equal place in the debate, nor that every sentence must itself account for all points of view. I shall poke around to see if I can find some WP policy literature which addresses it.Timothy Usher 16:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, we all agree with Wikipedia's neutrality policy, we just disagree with what constitutes neutrality. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, this issue is not as complicated as both of you, Timothy and Homestarmy are trying to make it out to be.

The bottom line is that the rules here prohibit us from writing in an article that "Christianity is monotheistic" Here is why:

1. Christians believe that Christianity is monotheistic. 2. Muslims believe that Christianity isn't monotheistic.

The two groups do not agree. Are you with me so far? Is this not all perfectly clear and factual so far?

3. Saying "Christianity IS monotheistic" is saying that the Christians are right and the Muslims are wrong. The Muslims say its not, and the sentence says it is, and its contradicting them, therefore they are wrong, according to the article.

4. NPOV says we can't say that. We can't take sides, no matter how badly you want to say that Christians are right, no matter how firmly you believe that they are right, its not allowed.

Christians believe that Christianity is monotheistic. - This is the fact that Muslims and Christians can both agree on, and can go in the article.

Christianity is monotheistic. - This is a statement that Muslims and Christians do not agree on, and hence cannot be treated as a fact, and cannot go in the article.

It's really simple, and has nothing to do with Tom Cruise.

Its called NPOV, you might want to read up on it sometime, and spare us the trouble of having to explain at length the basic rules over and over.

Bringing up Scientology does not change the above. Attempts to confuse the issue will not work. - Drogo Underburrow 17:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Muslims are a significant group, so it is not like we are adding the view of some off the wall group. All views must be represented, and it shouldn't simply say that Christianity is monotheistic, but rather that its believers think it's monotheistic, while others do not.

KV 17:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Then why does the Islam article state that Islam is monotheistic, im sure many fundamentalists like myself would argue that since their definition of God is not correct, that therefore they are...zerotheistic for worshipping basically nothing, and there are many fundamentalist types out there. Monotheistic simply means to worship one God, and if you go into pretty much any church, whether it be Catholic, Southern Baptists, Jehovah's witness, Mormon, I don't know of any church where you'll ever hear anyone worship a plurality of Gods. I also don't know of a single variety of Bible, whether it be more literal, more figurative, just plain ridiculous, that New Age Bible I hear has been floating around, or anything that does not state that God is the only God. Christianity is almost compleatly based on either the Bible or a Church's practices which get impressed upon followers generally, and either way you slice it, it is clearly monotheistic. This is not New Agepedia, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, its a duck. Homestarmy 17:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re "zerotheism" claim: this is but one of many consequences of the "Black Stone" argument I'd given above, to which no one has responded. The Islamic "critique" (as it is not scholarly opinion, but little more than ignorant prejudice) of Christianity requires that we define what God is, and indeed that's exactly the basis of their assumption.Timothy Usher 18:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Why does the Islam article state that Islam is monotheistic?" I don't know. If you object, do it on their talk page, not here.

"I don't know of any church where you'll ever hear anyone worship a plurality of Gods." - So what?

"I also don't know of a single variety of Bible ...that does not state that God is the only God." - So what? Just because the Bible says something, does not mean Muslims cannot dispute what it says. When significant numbers of people dispute things, NPOV prohibits us from saying one side is right.

"Christianity is almost compleatly(sic) based on either the Bible or a Church's practices ....and either way you slice it, it is clearly monotheistic." - So you say. Muslims disagree. NPOV says the article can't choose sides.

"This is not New Agepedia, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, its a duck." - Unless a significant body of people disagree, and call it a sheep. In which case, we are not allowed to say, "Its a duck", we can only say, 'Group X thinks it is a duck."

This is not my opinion. I'm simply applying the NPOV rules. You could do the same for yourself if you would only take the time to learn them and decide they apply instead of whatever rules you make up yourself, and then we could discuss much more complex things to make the article better and not dwell on this basic stuff. But if we do not agree on the basic stuff, there is nothing at all we can agree on, since we arn't playing by the same rules. If one team thinks its baseball, they can't play if the other team insists on using a football. - Drogo Underburrow 17:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"...if you would only take the time to learn them and decide they apply instead of whatever rules you make up yourself..." I think it's less than useful to suggest that those of us who disagree with you do so out of willful ignorance. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

“If you were to ask any of a billion Muslims if they thought Christians worshiped only one god, their answer would be "no"”...“The Muslims say its not”...

You cannot speak for all Muslims, Drogo (indeed, I doubt if you could even speak for one). You need a reputable scholarly source, for starters.

“We can't take sides, no matter how badly you want to say that Christians are right, no matter how firmly you believe that they are right, its not allowed.”

Sorry, but there is a line that we draw when it comes to basic findings of fact as related to dictionary definitions.

What Muslims who believe this are simply misinformed. It is also a common belief among Christians that Allah is not the same as God. In both cases, we cannot be hedging indisputable facts with prejudice and ignorance. It is the job of wikipedia to inform. WP:NPOV must not be construed in such a way as to compromise encyclopedicity. The mere fact that something is widely believed does not in itself merit equal inclusion. Sometimes it’s enough to inform the reader that a certain opinion exists.

“So, its wrong to say "Christianity IS monotheistic" which says that Muslims are wrong.”

No wronger that it is to give the approximate age of the Earth, which says that creationists are wrong. You need a reputable scholarly source which says not just that many Muslims believe Christianity to be polytheistic, which would warrant only a statement to that effect (which we already have), but one which advances the opinion that Christianity actually is polytheistic.Timothy Usher 17:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You insist on a source that says Moslems object? I'm not suggesting that the article say that Muslims object. I'm only suggesting that it say that Christians say that Christianity is monotheistic. My reason is that Moslems object. I don't need a source for this, its not going in the article, I am just asserting it. Are you seriously arguing that they don't? That would be very argumentive of you, arguing just to argue. But, if you truly doubt that more than a few Moslems feel that Christianity is not monotheistic, I won't debate you. Instead, I will insist that you entirely remove all mention of monotheism from the article unless every sentence on the topic is sourced and attributed, as required under the WP:Verify policy.

"Sorry, but there is a line that we draw when it comes to basic findings of fact as related to dictionary definitions" - it doesn't say that in the policy pages, and you can't make up your own rules. It makes no difference anyway. If significant numbers of people do not believe something that is defined in a dictionary, then NPOV requires we deal with their POV.

"What Muslims who believe this are simply misinformed." - it doesn't matter, the issue is not wether they are right, but whether they believe something.

"WP:NPOV must not be construed in such a way as to compromise encyclopedicity." - Another rule you just made up? Show me where it says this in the policy pages.

"The mere fact that something is widely believed does not in itself merit equal inclusion." No one is asking for equal inclusion. The point is one cannot say that the side is wrong. Drogo Underburrow 18:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There are also the Cainites whom I have mentioned many times. They believed that there were at least TWO Gods, one of the Old Testament that was evil, and a good one that sent Jesus and really created the world. I believe there were 5 total Gods, but I only know for sure about the two. Being Christians, already not all Christianity is monotheistic, but some falls under henotheism. Also, I'm pretty sure "zerotheistic" is not a word, it would be atheistic....... and that wouldn't even make sense. If they believe in one God, then they are monotheistic. If you can claim that that God is really 4 gods, then you can accuse them of the same, polytheism. Their claim is not that they consider the Christian God to be fake (in fact it is the exact same as the Jewish God and the Christian "The Father") and accepted to be so by all three religions in general. Admittedly, there are a few Christians that believe that they really are satanists, but that's not a major group. :KV 18:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As you say, that is rightly henotheism, not monotheism. The question is, then, are the Cainites prominent enough to warrant a hedge in the intro? I think the answer is clearly no, because the purpose of the intro is to establish general truths to serve as a reference point for further discussion - it must not be seen as a conclusion. Should they be mentioned in the article? Absolutely.Timothy Usher 21:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate to have this type of discussion and have Myopic make edits without gaining concensus. I would request that all editors stop editing the intro until we have come to a conclusion. The proposal on the table is to edit the first paragraph to read, in some way or form, that Christians believe in a monotheistic concept of God. The operative term is believe, the rest of the sentence can be changed.

Also, it does not help to bring up other articles and how they are written. Believe me, the same standards are meant to apply to every article and some just "get it" sooner than others. As a LDS this has long been a thorn in my side as other Christians insist on telling me what I believe; it is not fun, but it is part of the game we play here at WIKI.

The concept of monotheism is so fundamental to Christianity that it is a bit boggling that it should be clarified. However, the simple change mentioned above will ensure that we meet all standards of NPOV however silly we sometimes apply the rules. Enough said. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for a fixed version, after seeing Giovanni try to fix it:

Christianity is religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as Jesus Christ, as recounted in the New Testament. Generally it is thought of as monotheistic, though some ancient sects were not and some critics, most notably Muslims accuse it of being polytheistic.

With an estimated 2.1 billion adherents in 2001, it is the world's largest religion. ^[1]

I think it needs that extra explanation if we're going to deal with monotheism, whether it is early on or not. Alternatively, we can leave it as being generally viewed as monotheistic and then discuss the difference of opinions and the Cainites in the beliefs section.

KV 19:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I can almost live with that, as it is stating what people consider rather than what it actually is, and notes who accuses it of what. However, I say "almost", because im pretty sure the Cainanites were henotheistic, similar to (I think) certain groups of Mormonism. Just remember the "a" in between "is" and "religion" :). Homestarmy 19:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not like this version at all. Homestarmy's current one is better. The section explaining monotheism is horrible. Drogo Underburrow 19:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I said that they weren't monotheistic, whereas the henotheism is not monotheism, it's a polytheism that only worships one of the gods......

KV 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what's in there now is just whatever Geo did, with me changing the word "Christians" to, well, whatever I put, I was just doing it there temporarily until we resolve this dispute. But anyway, if monotheism is defined as the worship of one God, don't henotheists worship just one God and simply acknowladge the existance of others? Homestarmy 19:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, actually it's not the worship of one god, "Monotheism (in Greek μόνος = single and θεός = God) is the belief in the existence of one God, or in the oneness of God." If you believe that there is more than one, then you're polytheistic. That's the beginning of the monotheism article.

KV 19:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the belief in many "gods", and only recognizing one as The True God, though. Even the Bible mentions there are other "gods". (Psalm 82:1; John 1:1; 10:34, 35; 1 Corinthians 4:4; 8:5,6; ). --Oscillate 19:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do believe that's generally taken by Christians and Jews as being false gods (though there are theories that the earlier Jews did worship other gods they believed to be just as real, and that Yahweh had competition) as in non-existant gods made up by people. Hence allowing Christianity and Judaism to be monotheistic. However, if I am wrong there, then Christianity certainly wouldn't be monotheistic.

KV 20:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the point is that "god" is used for Satan, powerful human judges, and Jesus. In the Bible, "god" can mean an entity in a superior position, but "God" is the one Almighty. The Jews were certainly monotheistic. I was only bringing out a semantic difference. --Oscillate 20:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, a bit off topic, but I noticed that the Cainite page needed to be expanded, very little information is available there..... so if you know much about it, especially if you can cite it, please add there as well.

KV 23:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to go into what others' have said and simply state my view:

Christianity is a monotheistic religion because it believes in one God.
Christians also believe that this one God exists as three persons or hypostases while still being one being.
They believe one of these hypostases to have become man in Jesus Christ.
Others (such as Muslims) might find this repulsive or illogical or contradictory but that is not the point. Christians still believe in one single deity.
Christians have developed an elaborate theology out of the question of how to explain the reality of God and of how to combine these seemingly contradictory statements found in revelation (mainly the Bible). I suspect that many edit-warring about this have not even the slightest clue on the whole issue.
Including the issue in the controversy section might be valid, but to push that POV in the intro is not. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Two more points:

Given the Islamic view of the Quran, one could also argue that Islam has not one but two Gods - Allah and the Quran, as the latter is considered coeternal and uncreated (basically what Christians say about God the Son)
The controversies section now refers to a Trinity of God Father, Son and Spirit, whereas Islam wronlgy includes Mary as the third person of the Trinity. So much for giving Islam validity of defining Christianity. I will strip the text down to say just Trinity for accuracy's sake. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If you understand that God is not a Trinity, and neither the Bible, nor Jesus, nor God say such in the scriptures, then there are no more "contradictory statements" that need complex and elaborate explanations that reside wholly outside God's Word. --Oscillate 14:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And if you really don't care to understand the nature of God down to the most infinitly incomphrehensible levels, which neither the Bible, nor Jesus, nor God ever says we should have to care about, then there isn't any need to make the trinity out to be so complicated to the point where people have any grounds to critisize the idea in the first place. Whether the word trinity is in the Bible or not or whether God ever said a word about it doesn't matter, Christianity still remains monotheistic. Further, if what Str says is true about Islam placing Mary as the third person in the trinity, then forget about comprimise, that's just ridiculous, how can that kind of opinion possibly warrent not labelling Christianity as monotheistic? Homestarmy 15:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Infinitely incomprehensible"? God never says we have to care about understanding him??

John 17:3 - "And this is eternal life: [it means] to know (to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with, and understand) You, the only true and real God, and [likewise] to know Him, Jesus [as the] Christ (the Anointed One, the Messiah), Whom You have sent." The Amplified Bible;
1 Timothy 2:4 - (God), "Who wishes all men to be saved and [increasingly] to perceive and recognize and discern and know precisely and correctly the [divine] Truth." The Amplified Bible.

If the basis of our understanding of God and his relationship with us is so incomprehenisble, then why would it be so necessary for us to understand God so well? I'd say it's very important to know what God and Jesus say about it. Yes, Christianity is absolutely monotheistic. There is only one True God and Jesus is quite clear that he is not God. --Oscillate 15:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean know God as in intellectual knowladge of His being and every last way that He operates, not know as in be acquainted with. You can be acquainted with someone without knowing everything about them. And where did the "Jesus not being God" comment come from? I'd be glad to debate this with you but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this discussion. The trinity really isn't supposed to be complicated because human's cannot possibly understand every single last bit of God's infinite being, God is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit....also God. Not A group of gods. Homestarmy 16:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Partially right: God is only one. YHWH is God as He himself said; Jesus is his Son, as he himself said, a divine being who has a God. Jesus was very clear that he was not God, and to be proclaiming that people should come to an accurate knowledge of God and then to pretend like he was praying to someone else, talking to someone else, directing people to someone else when in reality it was him all along...? It's not a matter of fully comprehending the infinite being of God, it's the idea that if you're supposed to have a close relationship with God, and yet, while he was supposedly on Earth, he was tricking people into thinking he was not God but rather the obedient servant of God (before and after his earthly life), sent by Him, trained by Him, directed by Him...don't you see the problem with that? And if Jesus was God, then when Jesus died, he never really died, which was necessary for the ransom to mean anything. --Oscillate 16:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, i'd sure like to have this debate, but im not sure what this has to do with monotheism. Could we take this to one of our talk pages? Homestarmy 19:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have a question for Str: How do you gather that the Quaran is a god? If one were to say that, then why don't we disrupt the trinity and state that the Bible is the fourth god of Christianity?

Now, there is no need to debate whether or not Christianity is actually monotheistic or not, because that is not the question. The first question is if the Islamic view is important enough to include, and the second question is, if so, where and how do we include it.

If the agreement is that it shouldn't be included in the intro, then we cannot simply state that Christianity is monotheistic there either (that is siding with the POV) but we should go with my line "is generally seen as monotheistic" and then proceed to elaborate further in the beliefs section.

KV 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know what's going on Str's mind, but I imagine that since he notes many Muslims to believe the Qu'ran as a book which has existed for all eternity, that it therefore certainly has attributes to it normally only attributed to God. Homestarmy 19:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Str1977 is correct about Muslims believing the Quran to be eternal and uncreated, those things would effectively put it on par with God, at least the way most Christians understand God. Christians believe there is one God, and that everything else that exists is created by God, such as the universe, spiritual beings like angels, etc. Christians do not believe their Bible is eternal and uncreated. We can quibble about dates, but agree that all of it was written down by humans, within time (as opposed to eternity), while being "inspired" by the Holy Spirit. Opinions differ as to what inspired means exactly, but even among those who believe God dictated word for word, this is still thought to be done in time, dictated to a human who lived in time and wrote it down. Wesley 04:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for not reading my mind but you guys came pretty close.

Muslims believe Allah to be the one and sole God. "Orthodox Islam" as it developed also hold the Quran to be uncreated and eternally existing. Now, Muslims in their dogmatic development were not confronted with Greek philosophy (as Christianity was) and hence didn't figure out that this makes the Quran "consubstantial", if I may use the key word of the Nicene creed, with Allah, making the Quran either somehow part of the deity (which is, very roughly, the Christian solution in regard to Jesus), or they can believe in two gods. The latter of course would be "shirk" and this is what Muslims accuse Christianity of. Now, my personal solution the Muslims' problem is that the view of an eternal Quran is a later development (it appears in the 9th century, I believe) and erring from Muhammad's teaching. Since Muslims don't use the tool Greek philosophy has given us, they can shirk (pun not intended) the contradiction. However, that's only my opinion and I have that principle that I will never weigh in with confidence in the dogmatic/theological disputes of another religion. In other words: I will not comment on which party in a intra-Islamic dispute is right and which is wrong. I am a Christian and can only speak with any confidence in regard to Christianity.

Wesley is of course right in his reply to KV's objection: Christians don't hold the Bible to be eternally existing but rather all agree that it came into being book by book over time, spanning from Moses (15th century BC) to the Apostle John (c. 100 AD). What Muslims believe about the Quran we believe about Jesus, the eternal word of God. One could say, while Christianity holds that "the Word became flesh" (Prologue to John's gospel), Muslims believe that "the Word became book". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

Can someone say exactly what this means? I'd like to adjust the writing but don't want to change the meaning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Christian scriptures, the term "Christian" is first attested in Acts 11:26: "And in Antioch Jesus' disciples were first called Christians" (Gr. χριστιανους, from Christ Gr. Χριστός, which means "the anointed one")."

This sentence seems to be dealing with the "first" use of the word Christian. Is the sentence really all that unclear? ^iggy_talk 00:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it unclear, yes. It says "in the Christian scriptures," as though it's qualifying it i.e. "it may have been used first elsewhere, but in the Christian scriptures, it was first used ..." And it's not clear what "attested" means in this context. It doesn't mean was first used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Presumably, the original author of this passage was trying to point out that the word "Christian" may have been used prior to the writing of the New Testament. It is a bit confusing that it both qualifies "In the Christian scriptures" and then states it is "first attested" which would seem to imply "the first verifiable usage", but this is quite possibly the effect of over-editing. Then again, the particular reference to "Christian scriptures" seems to imply that the original author either had no knowledge of possibly earlier non-Christian sources or ignored what information s/he may have had — I find it quite improbable that there is any text that can attest to the word "Christian" refering to this particular religion prior to the book of Acts, but that is only an opinion. Does that help you at all? ^iggy_talk 04:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The way it reads now is even weirder. In the Christian scriptures, the term "Christian" is first known to have appeared in Acts 11:26. To me, that means that the word may have been in Christian scriptures earlier than Acts 11:26, but we're not quite sure about it. How about this instead, According to Acts 11:26 in the Christian Scriptures, the word "Christian" was first used at Antioch." Does that work better for anyone? BigDT 04:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be much better.Timothy Usher 04:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. ^iggy_talk 04:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't know what that's trying to say. Is it saying that Acts 11:26 says that the word was first used at Antioch? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Acts 11:26 says: "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." This isn't much of a source. It would be better to quote a secondary source saying what the earliest known usage of the word is, which may or may not be Acts, and which may or may not tie in with what Acts 11:26 says; and then if you want, quote Acts 11:26 too, so long as the secondary source hasn't made doing that redundant. And why use the term "Christian Scriptures"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well what more sources do we need about Christianity besides the book that sort of defined it? Homestarmy 12:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's usually better to cite an authoritative secondary source, even if s/he says the same thing as the primary source. I'll try to look around for one when I have time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Acts says that the word was first used at Antioch. Since Acts is a well-known text with an extensively documented history, to cite another modern source would surely be redundant, since it would merely be some recent scholar citing Acts. It seems honest enough simply to cite Acts. If Plato says something in his "Republic", you don't scrabble around to quote some modern writer saying the same thing: why treat Acts differently? Myopic Bookworm 13:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Acts is a religious text so it does not serve as a good scholarly source, although it can be used if its proprerly stated, "according to Acts..."Giovanni33 20:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly would be silly if the modern source's source was Acts. But then we might not believe Joseph Smith when he says that the term Mormon was first used in Chicago, as well. Most of his account is not held as credible by most people, most people not being Mormons who believe he recieved any gold plates from any angel.

KV 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as the use is attributed to Acts, there should be no need to look for a secondary source. ^iggy_talk 18:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Except that this article is not about Acts, but instead about the religion, and it would be good to have a reliable source for the first use of the word "Christian". I think that there may have been a book about the history of Christianity written at some point. Jkelly 19:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's simply saying that within Christian scriptures, the first reference to the term "Christian" is in Acts. —Aiden 23:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And you need a source for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a citation request. We should also bear in mind that the word "Christian" would not have been the word that first appeared in Acts, if indeed that is the earliest use of whatever term is translated into English as "Christian," so the sentence is a little misleading. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like "Christianous." That's an unproblematic translation as they go.Timothy Usher 09:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think the reference is the passage in Acts, which says that the name Christians was first coined in Antioch. It was not coined when this passage was written (and Paul's letters - which might or might not include the term) preceded Acts) but this passage reports on this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the issue here is that we cannot cite the first place in the New Testament, as it is traditionally arranged, to support the claim of the first usage. We must refer to reliable secondary sources in this respect; for example, it is quite possible the the word "Christians" first appeared in a non-Christian document. As it stands now ("In the New Testament, the term 'Christian' first appears in Acts 11:26"), the sentence is not especially informative; a reader would be interested in the first usage timewise, not in the first page in the traditional edition of the New Testament. Pecher ^Talk 17:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, SV, if I misunderstand the issue. I don't have a big stake in that dispute. If my memory serves me right, the sentence was supposed to say that the name "Christians" was first coined in Antioch and that Acts is the source for that information. Whether it was used in any document we don't know - we don't have such document. But it certainly was used orally, most probably by non-Christians. Such names are often given by those outside of the group. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Monotheism, continued

Do any reliable sources describe Christianity as other than monotheistic? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a couple Muslim apolgetics sites which seem to lean strongly towareds that conclusion, but since they seem rather evangelistic in nature, I don't think they come right out and say it. Homestarmy 19:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your version seems great to me, Homestarmy. Drogo Underburrow 19:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your change of word for my attempted solution is perfectly acceptable to me.Giovanni33 19:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I just put that there until we get done with this discussion, im by no means satisfied with what I put, I just did that because it looked really circular :). I think im leaning towards KV's suggestion since it doesn't try to say what it is or is not but rather puts it into the realm of people's views and seems to lean towared the correct generalization. Homestarmy 19:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Generalization I think is bad. It is weasel words. What I don't like about it is that it doesn't say who believes that Christianity is monotheistic. Drogo Underburrow 19:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not an arbitrary generalization. Based upon those entities which we can measure (existing on Earth of capable intelligence, we'll let aside what extraterrestrials may think) most who have any concept of Christianity would consider it monotheistic. Just like how most would consider the Earth to be much older than 6000 years. It's a fair generalization but then it brings note to the detractors of the idea that they are monotheistic. Now, we have WP:NPOV state: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views"

Islam is a significant viewpoint on the monotheism of Christianity, but it we do not need to represent it as if the views on whether Christianity is monotheistic or not is roughly equal in support. We in no way choose sides on which interpretation is right, but saying that most people in the US ascribe to the Democratic Party or Republican Party is the same. There are very few people in the third parties, and I am the exception.

It's similar to the treatment we're trying to have for the earlier branches of Christianity who were very significant in the past, as discussed in WP:NPOV as well, "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past." ... "Many adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned,"

We mention that there were these varied beliefs by these early sects, we don't say whether they were right or wrong, but it's perfectly fair to say that they no longer exist, or are very minimal. For example, there are very few Arians running around these days, we need not refrain from saying that there are more Catholics than Arians or Gnostics. We just dont' say that Catholicism is more right than the Arians or Gnostics.

So, if you can point out where it makes it appear that the Islamic view is wrong, then we have a NPOV problem, but that is not a weasel word.

KV 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity is religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as Jesus Christ, as recounted in the New Testament. Generally it is thought of by Christians as monotheistic, though some ancient sects were not and some critics, most notably Muslims accuse it of being polytheistic.

This is more specific. but I don't really like it much. -Drogo Underburrow 20:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

For an intro that gets right into the criticisms section. —Aiden 00:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to leave the attacks and 'but some people say' stuff until at least after the introduction. All Christians consider the religion monotheistic (the number of exceptions is trivial). The fact that some outspoken members of other religions think differently is worth mentioning, but not in the intro. We shouldn't include what is said by a minority critics in the intro. I can find sources who call Islam "Satanic" but I wouldn't put it in the intro to Islam. (I wouldn't put it in the article at all in fact, but there you go). DJ Clayworth 14:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And those Christians who disagree AFAIK reject the Trinity rather than the monotheistic character of their religion, e.g. Unitarians. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing the issue. We're talking about Christianity here. The vast majority of Christians view their religion as monotheistic, but simply have a different interpretation of the nature of God from Jews or Muslims. No Christian will deny the oneness of God, but at the same time most will tell you of his parts. Christians often equate this to humans, which they believe have a spirit, soul, and body. These same people would not say a human is three disctinct beings. So I think it is highly POV to remove references to monotheism from the article, namely because it is like saying "Well you think you're monotheist but you're really not." It is basically advocating an outside interpretation over the one of the followers themselves. It's telling Christians what they believe, which is not what Wikipedia is about. If Christians believe in one God, then their religion is by definition monotheistic. —Aiden 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made a version with changes in the first paragraph (minimal) and added information in Monotheism under Beliefs. If this is accepted, we can pull it out of controversies.

KV 16:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Short lived as it was, the permanent link is here, so feel free to comment on that version.

Weasel wording. —Aiden 17:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to find so far any sourced references to Islam viewing Christianity as not monotheistic. Pecher ^Talk 17:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I have added a citation, in the controversies section, and in the short-lived version of mine. And Aiden, how is it weasel wording? Please explain yourself. WP:AWW, first off, is not a policy, but a guideline. And even if a policy, it is inferior to WP:NPOV which would require us to not pick sides on the debate between 2.1 billion Christians and 1.2 billion Muslims on whether Christianity is monotheistic or not. Seeing as it is generally seen as monotheistic, we can say that it is generally seen as such, but there are 1.2 billion people, about 1/5 of the world's population, who see otherwise. We cannot declare Christianity factually monotheistic, only lay out evidence and let them draw their OWN conclusions.

KV 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Trinitarian Christianity, if you please. --Oscillate 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous posting on islamic.org.uk is not a reliable source. Pecher ^Talk 18:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a page on the organization's site of islamic.org.uk. It is not like it was an anonymous forum post that anyone could have posted, it was made by a member of the organization. The first link, to Adherents.com is also anonymous, as is the book of Acts. Shall we discount these as well?

KV 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A member of what organization? KV, please read WP:RS; we must cite scholar of the subject in question. Pecher ^Talk 18:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is every bit as credible as those other sources I mentioned, the more scholarly, the better, but most of this article is completely unsourced. In fact, the Adherents.Com site says that its numbers are not credible. "Sizes shown are approximate estimates, and are here mainly for the purpose of ordering the groups, not providing a definitive number. This list is sociological/statistical in perspective" The number may or may not be 2.1 Billion and probably should be restored to the old version of over 2 Billion. I have heard the accusation many places elsewhere, and I am sure you have as well.

KV 18:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The adherents.com link is far from ideal. This has popped up on Muslim and Islam as well. The other cites people were using were 1) a BBC link that cited Adherents.com, placed alongside it to give the appearance of agreement 2) wikipedia itself. Meanwhile, Geothone101 comes around every now and then to raise the Christian figure and lower the Muslim figure without any cites at all. So, for now, it's the best we've got. As the information is not particularly provocative or controversial, and indisputably topical, we should be looking for a better source before removing this one. I'm not sure that subbing an unsourced ballpark figure constitutes improvement.Timothy Usher 19:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was suggesting Adherents.Com just be used for being as good as it states it is good for, which is that ballpark figure. But, my main point is that there is bias in how these standards are applied on this article. Most things are uncited, some are poorly cited, then when similar citations are brought up that aren't conforming to a certain POV, they are unacceptable. If I tried to delete the similar reference to Acts or Adherents.Com I would find myself unable, whereas it doesn't work the other way around. You cannot pick and choose when and how to apply the standards as Pecher is attempting to do. Those citations are an ideal, and should not be denied when they do exist (even though I know through experience that they still are). But given that the citation, though it may not be an ideal citation yet, is better at citing this than most statements, which are completely uncited. There is no reason to doubt that this is the muslim POV when we have muslims saying it is here, we have people on muslim sites, owners of those sites, stating that same fact.

KV 19:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Inline citations are not required, just recommended, but if someone disputes your claim, you must provide a reliable source per [{WP:RS]]. It is not good to say "but, you know, the rest of the article is not referenced at all". It is this specific claim that is the subject of the dispute, so let's stick to it, instead of trying to deflect the arguments by claiming that your opponents use double standards. Pecher ^Talk 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There are double standards in place, and I had once placed numerous fact tags on the page, only to have it called vandalism. If you would like to leave civility, we can have many other "facts" on this page questioned with fact tags and require sources for them. Otherwise, you'll have to let the citations of what Muslims are saying (and yes, a muslim is a reliable source for what muslims believe lacking a statement to the contrary from any muslim)stand until there is time to search for another. We have had muslims come on here to claim just that. It's not at all a questionable fact. In fact, there is a questionable (though easily discussed) claim that Christianity is monotheistic that that text was added in reference to. I trust you'll choose civility.

KV 03:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, King Vegita. Your edit was not called vandalism. To add 36 fact tags to an article, and to include as these "unsourced statements" things like "Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah", "Christians believe in heaven and hell", and "Catholics also believe in purgatory"[3] was extremely eccentric, and I suggested that that edit might have been unfairly called vandalism if it had been made by an anon.[4] And your attempt to add that false accusation about me to a website that was stalking me and other editors[5] would be taken very seriously if it were not for the fact that that website at that time did not give personal information. Nevertheless, the fact that when I politely explained that an edit was not appropriate and might have unfairly been called vandalism, you wanted it publicized that I had accused you of vandalism does raise some rather serious questions. AnnH ♫ 11:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the current link, and the site is hosted by "The Sabr Foundation" which says it "is a not-for-profit educational and religious foundation." How is that not reputable?

KV 03:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Abrahamic religion

The term "Abrahamic religion" carries with it a very strong POV. Christians do not ususally consider teir religion to be an "Abrahamic" one; to be more, Christian theology does not recognize any relationship to Islam. Furthermore, Judaism does not recognize any special relationship with either Christianity or Islam, considering them man-made religions alongside Buddhism, Hinduism, and everything else. Only in Islam can we find the view that these three religions share a common root in the faith of Abraham. I'm not sure about the views of the majority of contemporary scholars of religion, but I did not see any references in this article as to who among the scholars calls Christianity an "Abrahamic religion". Pecher ^Talk 18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the "Abrahamic" article seems to disagree with you, I quote:

This forms a large group of largely monotheistic religions, generally held to include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Bahá'í Faith, and comprises about half of the world's religious adherents. Many of these adherents will reject this grouping of their faiths on the grounds that they contain inherently and fundamentally incompatible ideas concerning Abraham and concerning God.

End quote

Homestarmy 18:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "Abrahamic religion" is Muslim POV. Were I a space alien studying the development word religion, with no particular opinions about their truth value, I should feel obliged to use some terminology corresponding to Abrahamic and Dharmic religion as a mere matter of historical descent (of ideas, not of people).

Obviously any of he Abrahamic religions are more like one another than are Indo-European paganism and Zen Buddhism, yet the latter, like all "Dharmic" religions, descends from the former.

The Abrahamic religions might well be called "Jewish-influenced" religions - if there is Muslim POV there, I suppose it is designation after Abraham, who is selected only due to his appearance in the Qur'an. I don't think there's the notion that Abraham endorses any of this.

"Furthermore, Judaism does not recognize any special relationship with either Christianity or Islam, considering them man-made religions alongside Buddhism, Hinduism, and everything else."

Any special relationship? Christianity began as a sect of Judaism, which is a relationship were there ever one. Acknowledgement doesn't imply endorsement. Similarly, Islam is about Muhammad's perceptions of Judaism and Christianity, and claim of succession. Even were the relationship one of a pretender and a plaigarist, it would still constitute a special relationship.

I'd also guess that the most ancient Judaism would seem at least as foreign to any of these religions as they do to one another, much more so whatever religion Abraham can be said to have practiced.

Buddhism, for its part, descends from Hinduism, which descends from Indo-European paganism. So there isn't a special relationship at this level (although I'd guess them to have had a common ancestor at some point in prehistory).

Perhaps the term does us some vague psychic disservice, but to not inform the reader that there is a historical relationship is a greater disservice.

My inclination is, by default, to use terms in the way they are normally used, avoiding in-text debates about the validity of their ideological underpinnings whenever possible. We know what Abrahamic religion means, it's informative, and there's no well-established competing term (or is there?) Similarly with "monotheism", "Islamism", etc. Where such debates are warranted, they should be confined to discrete sections where they are on-topic, rather than applied against every instance of the term across wikipedia, which would lead to chaos.Timothy Usher 19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Tim, without discussing your argument on merits (and I assume that some scholars may agree with you), I must point out that such considerations constitute a POV. You may try to argue with the leading rabbis that there is some relationship between Christianity and Judaism, but I'm afraid you'll have hard time convincing them. From the Jewish point of view, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or any other religion is man-made, and there is no good in trying to distinguish between them. It's somewhat different in Christianity, but here too, there is no special designation encompassing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Only in Islam, we have a hierarchy of religions, including revealed religions tracing to Abraham — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — of which only Islam is uncorrupted. I have requested above for citations from scholars of religion, but to no avail, as I can see. For now, we cannot assume that this article is neutral, while it lumps together Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as "Abrahamic religions". Pecher ^Talk 21:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't any NPOV tag regarding the usage of "Abrahamic religion" be placed on that article, and not this one that simply uses the information in the linked article? ("This forms a large group of largely monotheistic religions, generally held to include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Bahá'í Faith, and comprises about half of the world's religious adherents.") --Oscillate 21:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't use other articles as sources, so that's beside the point. Pecher ^Talk 21:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I trust you'll be adding the NPOV tag to that article as well, then? --Oscillate 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not see this as a NPOV issue at all, however the way the sentence is currently phrased is a little weasely: Christianity is considered an Abrahamic religion. This naturally raises the question "by whom"? I think if we can state who consideres Christianity an Abrahamic religion, we can fix the POV issues right then and there. Personally, I would remove the phrase "considered", but apparently there is at least one person (maybe more?) who disagree with this claim. Therefore, the easiest fix is to simply state who is making the claim, either by qualifying the sentence, or adding a citation.--Andrew c 22:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Note

This page was apparently deleted at some point. AnnH apparently ended up restoring it. I'm only stating this since I notice it's not showing up on my watchlist, so people will now know that it has been edited. Top of your watchlist now...

KV 19:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Citation needed" on first use of 'Christian' clause

Why is there a 'citation needed' tag on the clause stating the term 'Christian' is first used in the New Testament in Acts 11:26? Maybe I'm missing something. The clause links directly to the verse. This verse is the first mention in the New Testament of the term. See here. —Aiden 22:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This just came to mind. Do scholars all agree that Acts predates 1 Peter? --Andrew c 22:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but that's not really at issue. The first place (in book order) you'll find mention of the term Christian is in Acts. I don't see the need for additional sources when we have a link to the verse itself. —Aiden 00:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the link to the verse itself doesn't show it's the first time it's used in the New Testament. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise removed - without comment - in just 11 minutes

Christianity is a religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as recounted in the New Testament. Most Christians believe Jesus to be divine, one of three persons in a triune God, and refer to him as Jesus Christ. With an estimated 2.1 billion adherents in 2001, Christianity is the world's largest religion. [1]

Aiden, how many reverts for you today? Did you even see this? Your remarks show no indication of working together on this issue --JimWae 23:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything. I simply modified your addition to include something all Christians believe, something that better typifies Christianity. All Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah, hence the term 'Christ', hence the term 'Christian'. You seem apt to highlight contentious issues in Christianity. —Aiden 00:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I did leave an edit summary with my reasons. And I think you'd know by now that changing articles which have been in some similair form for quite some time, especially intros, without first reaching a consensus is liable to get your reverted. Again though, I did not revert you; I only reworded some. I don't see what your issue is. —Aiden 00:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden if you undo another editor's work, it's a revert — whether you delete it, reword it, whether you revert to a previous version, or only part of one, and regardless whether you do a different thing each time, they're all reverts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A reword is not a revert, sorry. —Aiden 03:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, rewording had been counted as reverting in bannings against Giovanni, for this article specifically. Which would be a precedent that rewording is indeed a revert, assuming it substantially undoes what the previous editor had done.

KV 03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Heading off an edit war.

Timothy Usher, I'd like to briefly explain why I felt it necessary to revert most of your changes. The main issue here is monotheism. Christians see themselves as monotheistic, and it would be POV for us to say otherwise. We must report what Christians believe about their own religion. However, we cannot decide whether these beliefs are true. It is a common belief among Muslims that Christianity falls short of true monotheism because they worship a mortal prophet -- Jesus -- as a god. Yes, I realize that trinitarianism says that God is one entity with three aspects, but this is clearly not accepted by Muslims. Who's right? Who cares?! We just report both sides. Given the number of Muslims out there, I hardly think they qualify as a minor view. They deserve a sentence or two, no?

Now, I encourage you to hash this issue out fully in Talk before making any edits at all that involve these topics. This will avoid an edit war. Thank you for understanding. Al 03:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of a website, written by a Muslim, where she expresses her feelings on this issue. Should we use her as a source? No. I simply give this link to show how some Muslims view this question. She writes:

"no matter how much you claim that the Trinity is One God, it still mixes a human being (Jesus) with God, and thus results in worshiping either a deified human being (Jesus as God) or a micro-god (God with Jesus's human characteristics) and this is not monotheism. You are worshiping a false image not the real God."[[6]]

We ought to be respectful of different religions, and factually state what Christians believe, but not asserting those beliefs as being in themselves facts. There is a big difference. The fact that some of our Western sources are not respectful this way, and state Christian dogmas as being facts, does not mean that Wikipedia can do that too. We operate under different rules. - Drogo Underburrow 03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As in my reply to King Vegita below, I want to see a reputable scholarly source advancing the argument that Christianity is polytheistic.

As for the comment you quote, that is actually a more accurate representation of Muslim belief than what we've seen thusfar. It's not that Christianity is polytheistic in the way we'd use the term, but that it's not pure monotheism in that it falsely assumes a human being to be God while ascribing human characteristics to God. That's a lot more subtle a point than "Christians worship several gods." I agree with them in this. But, it's not characterizable as "polytheism."Timothy Usher 03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this before. If people establish a religion and state what they believe, then that's what they believe--THAT is the religion! Who are we to tell people what their religion is and is not? Christians believe in only one God, although having three parts. This is totally different from polytheism. By definition, not by POV, Christianity is monotheistic. By inserting these weasel words you are inferring that Christianity is not in fact monotheistic, but is only believed to be by its followers. Secondly, please see WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. As another editor said in the previous dicussion, simply because some groups consider Islam Satanic or based on polytheistic pagan beliefs, does that mean we are to qualify everything about Islam that is generally accepted in society? Why are you same people not putting such a qualifier in the Islam article? Are you advocating one POV over another? —Aiden 03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

See this definition of Christianity:

christianity
n 1: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

—Aiden 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're simply mistaken. Even if Christians define their religion as monotheistic, it is not up to us to support or deny this claim: we just report it.

Oh, and note that many definitions of Christianity somehow manage not to mention monotheism, so your point is diminished even on its own terms. For example:

"Christianity, n., pl. -ties.

1. the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches." - RHWUD

The bottom line is that it is as POV to assert that Christianity is in fact monotheistic as it would be to assert that Islam is in fact wrong. THat's because the former necessitates the latter. Al 04:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Ali, it is not POV to assert that. To assert it is not even to say that Christianity's beliefs are true or fact (except of course in as much as it is a fact Christians believe this). Christianity believes in one God (see the first sentence of the Nicene creed). Christianity believes God to be trinitarian. You might not agree with that but it doesn't change the fact that Christians belief in one God - which is generally how monotheism is defined. The controversy is dealt with further down. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Al, isn't it more POV (not to mention a logical contradiction) to state that what Christians believe is not what Christians believe? What you're really stating is that non-Christian views of Christianity is different than what Christians believe, but that should be a no-brainer. FACT: Christians believe what Christians believe. FACT:Non-Christians do not share this belief.

For that matter, the Qur'an states that Jews call Ezra the son of God just as Christians call Jesus the son of God. Would it be POV to assert that Judaism in fact does not view Ezra as Christianity views Jesus? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Christians believe that there is one God consisting of three persons - see the Athanasian Creed, for a detailed summary of Trinitarian faith. One quote should suffice to put this argument to bed (he said, hopefully):

We worship one God in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity; neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the Substance...There are not three Gods, but one God..

If those outside the Christian faith wish to maintain that the faith is not, in fact, monotheistic, this should be perhaps included in the page Criticisms of Christianity, and not in an article that describes the tenets of the faith itself. Fishhead64 17:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Reputable scholarly sources

Replacing www.islamic.org.uk with www.muhammad.net is not adequate. We need reputable scholarly sources, not religious pamphleteering. This is because WP:NPOV does not include the ignorant point of view, which I allege is all this is. Show me an acknlowledged academic expert on Christianity who is claiming that Christianity is polytheistic. Then, we have something. Now, all we have is misunderstanding which believe it or not, despite WP:NPOV, doesn't count. That is why we have WP:V.

Also, Alienus, your allegations of "edit-warring" (in your edit summary), like charges you've put to other editors since your last unblock, is unwarranted, as I've been a regular contributor to this talk page, and have discussed this issue extensively above.Timothy Usher 03:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The claim is not that Christianity is polytheistic, but rather that Muslims claim that it is polytheistic. We don't need an expert on Christianity, but an expert on Islam.

KV 03:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

For the "Controversies" section, you're right, as all this says is "Muslims believe...". But for the introduction hedge, I want to see a reputable scholarly and secular source.Timothy Usher 03:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We have a choice in the intro regarding monotheism. We can try and claim it is a fact that Christianity is monotheistic. To establish this as a fact, you need scientific proof. No such proof exists, because monotheism is simply a concept, and concepts are not facts, they are ideas. Or, you can state that Christians believe that Christianity is monotheistic, and I think most editors will accept that without any proof. Or, as a third and best solution, simply omit all reference to monotheism from the introduction. Please don't edit war insisting on the first choice. Drogo Underburrow 03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no attempt to make any authoritative claim that Christianity is polytheistic, at least not from my efforts. The goal is to show that not all agree on that issue, and so we discuss it further in the article. We make the claim that Christianity is generally considered monotheistic, and there needs not be one scholar who thinks that Christianity is polytheistic for the term to be reduced to "generally considered" if 1.2 billion people think that it is.

KV 03:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"To establish this as a fact, you need scientific proof. No such proof exists, because monotheism is simply a concept, and concepts are not facts, they are ideas."

This is why we have dictionaries: Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Bartleby

In fact, that Christians believe they worship one God is proof, by the definitions given here (the first that popped up), because monotheism is defined as a belief. Please see my points well above, to which no one responded: the standard being suggested here, that the objects of worship must really be one God, requires us to determine the nature (and existence, as one is more than none) of that God.

"...if 1.2 billion people think that it is."

First, no one has shown that all 1.2 billion of them believe this, and for my part I seriously doubt it. Its appearance in polemic doesn’t mean all Muslims swallow it, and I personally know a few who don’t (although all object to the notion of Jesus as God, as stated, this is a different point). Second, yes we can ignore these voices, if they're based on ignorance rather than reputable scholarship. See Evolution, Earth, etc. Of course, we should mention that some disagree, but we cannot use them as a source for anything beyond the fact that they are saying this, as with creationists.Timothy Usher 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No one is trying to prove that Christianity is polytheistic. That would be as silly as trying to prove it is monotheistic. There are no proofs of these ideas. This is not science, and we are not dealing with facts. That is why it is wrong of you to make the claim "Christianity is monotheistic". Its not. It says it is, and various scholars say it is, and that is all one can say about it. However, a lot of people, particularly Muslims, feel Christianity is not monotheistic, not in the sense that Islam is. Would you dispute that Muslims do not believe that the dogma of the Trinity is true? In that case, you have 1.2 billion people who object to your saying that the dogma of the Trinity is a fact and therefore Christianity is monotheistic. But that is in fact why Christianity is considered by its adherants as monotheism. Drogo Underburrow 03:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"No one is trying to prove that Christianity is polytheistic." - We realize this. Please check the dictionaries, and any other to which you might have access. As monotheism is defined as a matter of belief, all that we need to prove here is that Christians believe it so, just as that is all that's needed to show that Judaism or Islam are monotheistic. What some randomly-chosen Muslims feel actually doesn't matter in this regard, anymore than the fact that some Christian polemic claims that Allah is the name of a moon God prevents us from stating without reservation that Allah reflects merely al-ilah "the god." This is why we need reputable scholarly source. Generic sectarian ignorance is not a reputable scholarly source.

And you've yet to provide any evidence for your 1.2 billion figure - just because someone identifies themselves as a Muslim doesn't mean they believe Christianity to be "polytheistic", as this is hardly core doctrine. What is core doctrine is that Jesus is not God. So in the meantime, will you please stop making such claims?Timothy Usher 04:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Christians aren't the only ones who think they're monotheistic. Any number of scholars of religion classify Christianity this way as well; we're not forced to only choose between what Christians claim and what some outspoken Muslims claim. Timothy is correct when he says that if belief in Christianity's polytheism is not mandatory dogma for all Muslims, then you need more specific sources to show how prevalent this belief is among Muslims. Wesley \

I would also like to point out that anyone who took the time to read the text of prayers used by Orthodox Christians would see that they very explicitly avoid offering worship to Mary or any other saint, and explicitly reserve their worship for God alone, who exists as a Trinity. I suspect that the same is true of Roman Catholic prayers. To suggest that we worship the saints as "demigods" or as anything else is demonstrably false, unless you refuse to distinguish between worship and veneration. Wesley \

Having said that, KV appears to be offering a reasonable compromise, along the lines of "Christians are generally considered to be monotheistic...." That looks like the best direction to take this. Wesley 04:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden's reverts

Can someone come to a count on Aiden's reverts, it seems in the past 24 hours he's done at least 5 without me counting. I have to get to bed, so I can't do this right now.

KV 03:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo's Retraction Statement

I'm going to do something which might be rare here; I'd be curious to know other examples of it here on Wikipedia. What I'm going to do, is change my mind, and state that the opposition has convinced me that they are correct and I am wrong. I've argued very long and hard; now I've decided I was wrong. I now believe that its ok to state as a fact, that Christianity is monotheistic. Here's why I have changed my mind.

Timothy Usher has convinced me, it IS a matter of dictionary definitions, and my understanding of the meaning of "monotheistic" was wrong. Monotheism means to believe that God is one; it doesn't mean that God really is one. So, the mere fact that Christians profess that God is one, makes their religion monotheistic by definition. It doesn't matter if their reason for so believing is wrong. It doesn't matter if others think they are nuts. The only thing that counts, under the definition of monotheism, is for Christians to believe that God is one. I believe that Christians honestly do believe that. Therefore, its ok to state, "Christianity is monotheistic", as this means exactly the same thing as saying, "Christians believe that Jesus, The Holy Spirit, and the Father, are all one God." (or however they want to say it, I'm not 100% on their wording.

Its not POV to say "Christianity is monotheistic" because this IS saying that Christians believe in one God". It is not saying, "Only one God exists", nor is it saying that Christians are right to believe so. It is is simply stating what Christians believe, a point I was not aware of. Now, the only way "Christianity is monotheistic" would violate NPOV, is if other people believed that Christians were liars, and secretly believed that God was not one. If Muslims claim that Christians really believe that God isn't one, then the claim that Christianity is monotheistic becomes again a POV I don't think anyone makes that argument, but if they do, I will again have to rethink my opinion here. But Muslims simply think that Christians only think they believe in one God, but actually are believing in three gods. Am I right about this? On this revolves the whole issue, as it is the Muslim belief that really determines whether it is NPOV to state that "Christianity is monotheistic".

That is, because we only can state that as a fact if there is no one who believes otherwise; if any significant group of people, like 1.2 billion Muslims, believe that Christians don't believe in one God, are lying and secretly worship three gods, then we can't state it as a fact. Its my impression that Moslems do not assert that Christians are liars and secretly worship three Gods. What Moslems assert is that while Christians profess to believe in one God, they actually worship three. But that's ok, as long as Christians honestly profess a belief in one God, even if their dogma makes no sense, they have met the definition of monotheism, which is about belief only.

Congratulations, Timothy, you've convinced me. I hope you will think more kindly of me after this. Drogo Underburrow 04:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I think. Thank you. —Aiden 04:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The objection to stating Xty is monotheistic does not depend solely on what Xns profess. It is possible to believe 2 contradictory things - eg, both to believe that someone has betrayed you, and to not be able to believe it. Because, as even Xn scholars admit, the trinity is unfathomable - Xns believe in one god and also believe in (or think in terms of) three gods. To state unequivocally that trinitarianism is monotheism is POV. Xns do not lie about their beliefs, they are just unavoidably confused - because nobody can make sense of 3 "persons" being one entity. Unitarians split from the "mainstream" when their intellects could no longer accept the irrationality (in a non-pejorative sense) of a trinity. The solution for the article is to avoid the controversy/confusion over monotheism in the intro, but to present it only in the article where some discussion is possible. Xty is quite unique among extant religions in believing their founder is truly divine, and also quite unique in believing in a multi-"person" Godhead. Put the trinity in the intro, and monotheism in the main article. --JimWae 05:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Christianity is a religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as recounted in the New Testament. Most Christians believe Jesus to be divine, one of three persons in a triune God, and refer to him as Jesus Christ.

We must not add our own criterion to what constitutes monotheism. I can't see the sense in it myself, but so what? If someone says that there is only one God, and he lives, in different personalities, both in their pet rock and in their chia pet, and take them as idols, they're still monotheists, even if they don't meet the stringent standards of Tawhid. Mystical and/or obscurantist, but still monotheistic.Timothy Usher 05:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I think you're missing the point. Monotheism is simply the belief in only one God. Christians believe in only one God, just with a different nature than Judaism and Islam. Thus, by definition, Christians are monotheistic. Now, no one is saying they are correct--Islam says that what Christians believe is one God is actually three, but that is neither here nor there. As Christians profess and truly do believe in the existence of only one God, they adhere to a monotheistic faith. It's as simple as that. You have to look at it in the context of the religion's beliefs. If Christians think there is only one God, their religion has only one God and thus by definition is monotheistic (believing in one god).

Secondly, Jim, you are just misinformed about Christian beliefs. Christians do not in one sense believe in one God but in another believe in three Gods. They believe in one God with three distinct parts, just as Christians believe humans have a spirit, soul, and body--this does not constitute three separate people, but simply three distinct parts that make up one person. Unitarianism simply rejects the Trinity in that they reject the existence of these three parts of God. None-the-less, you would be putting words into others' mouths to say that Christians believe in three dieties. No Christian will tell you there are three Gods. And since no Christian would ever do such a thing, all Christians believe in one supreme God, and are thus by definition monotheistic--whether they are right or wrong. —Aiden 06:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the idea of three aspects of one person has been rejected, and that the father, son, and holy spirit are regarded as three persons. This is a confusing idea and so it would be wrong to call the religion monotheistic as though that's an undisputed fact (as it is with Judaism, for example), and therefore it's more accurate to say that it's regarded as monotheistic by its followers, which is undoubtedly correct. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to talk about what Xns think - as I did above - I am sure they think about much less unity than the doctrine states. I think even Aiden's paragraphs above would be considered heresy - since they have used an analogy in which not all "parts" have the same substance --JimWae 06:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

An example of just how confusing it gets [7] — three persons, one essence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not about whether Christians are wrong or right--whether the Trinity is actually three persons or one. It is about Christianity's beliefs. If Christians believe the Trinity is but one God, then they believe there is but one God. So by definition they are monotheistic in their beliefs. This in no way is implying that Christians are correct about the Trinity, that it constitutes only one diety. This simply states that Christianity and its beliefs hold that there is only one God, which is exactly what monotheism is-- a belief that there is only one God. —Aiden 06:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And I am saying that what they assert differs considerably from what they think & say --AND even actually sometimes believe -- [User:JimWae|JimWae]] 06:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, the point is that it's disputed, and so Wikipedia can't write that it's monotheistic as though it is not disputed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that is disputed is whether or not the Trinity is three Gods or one. It is not in dispute, however, that Christians believe it's only one. The latter is what determines whether the religion is monotheistic. —Aiden 06:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is disputed whether or not Xty is a "monotheistic religion", regardless of what its adherents assert --JimWae 06:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

- Then cite sources to prove that there is a difference between the two. Slac speak up! 06:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and JimWae, your contention that it's disputed is based on original research - namely, the philosophical speculations and considerations of editors to this talk page as to how monotheism should in our opinion be further defined. Based on this, you say the characterization is disputed, but only by ascribing novel meaning to well-established terminology.

Lest you think my claim of underlying OR a stretch, from WP:NOR: "An article qualifies as original research if...It provides new definitions of old terms." Similarly, I submit, if such definitions are implicit in the creation of the text.Timothy Usher 06:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

While monotheism might be defined as "belief in one god", and leaving aside for just a moment how beliefs can be determined when they are contradictory and/or cannot even be clearly put into words --- A "monotheistic religion" is defined as a religion with just one god. It is obviously in dispute whether the trinity is one god or 3 - as even Aiden admitted just above. Xns might assert one god, but they also "think & believe" otherwise --JimWae 07:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What group disputes the statement that Christianity is a monotheistic religion? Drogo Underburrow 06:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is monotheism defined as "a religion with just one god"? I think its defined in terms of belief, not in terms of facts such as you just stated. I don't have access to good dictionaries, so I'm asking. Drogo Underburrow 07:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The wording in dispute is "Xty is a monotheistic religion" not "Xians believe in monotheism" --JimWae 07:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity is a monotheistic religion means the same as saying "Christians believe in one god". Drogo Underburrow 07:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My edit-conflicted post is remarkably like Drogo's: what you call "believing in monotheism" is by definition monotheism.Timothy Usher 07:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, as you are the one who convinced me. Drogo Underburrow 07:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

They are not "the same". Not all Republicans "believe in" every part of the party platform. Not all Xns "believe" every doctrine of Xty. The dispute stands. --JimWae 07:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest, in the interests of dispute resolution, that no harm is done to the article in completely leaving out the disputed word from the intro? Drogo Underburrow 07:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Technically, one side is correct, Christianity is indeed a monotheistic religion by definition; but in practice, Muslims in particular contest that the doctrine of the Trinity is a de facto form of polytheism, and hence we should not boldly proclaim monotheism without discussing the various issues involved? Drogo Underburrow 07:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

JimWae, then cite reputable scholarly sources to that effect, and let us judge how much weight they merit.

As it is, the argument has changed several times - now it is no longer about Islamic critique of trinitarianism, but about whether some Christians might not follow orthodox doctrine (whereas before defiance of orthodox doctrine would have been a prerequisite for monotheism!).

It would seem that the continuance of the dispute is the only point beyond negotiation.Timothy Usher 07:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please consider my points in my last post. Also, as JimWae pointed out, what Christians believe is not a matter of what they say they believe, but what they actually do believe. If they believe in three gods, while saying they believe in only one, then how monotheistic are they? Drogo Underburrow 07:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have considered them, and agree that dispute resolution is a valid goal in itself.

The question you pose here, "...how monotheistic are they?" is not ours to answer. It presumes a redefinition of "monotheism" to something more approaching tawhid, which while similar is not identical. Far from hewing to a neutral point of view, it advances a certain purportedly objective concept of God, substituted for the non-judgemental relativism of definition by belief, such that Christianity can no longer be said to be uncontroversially monotheism (whereas to the very most skeptical, it's all made up anyhow, there is no God, so it can only be about belief.) It is a controversy only according to the introduction of this perspective, and as such reflects original research...unless we can find a reputable scholarly source which makes these claims, and even so, the question of due weight still applies.Timothy Usher 08:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's just leave it out of the intro as a statement of fact as there is significant disagreement. If necessary move the "denominations" section to below the "beliefs" then the first thing the reader will come across is the fact that Christianity defines itself as monotheistic despite any outside misunderstandings of the nature of the trinity. Sophia 08:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. One dictionary definition of monotheism is "The doctrine or belief that there is only one God". So if Christians have a doctrine that there is only one God, but in practice believe that there are three or even more gods (i.e. by praying to the Virgin Mary), then its not so clear that Christianity is monotheistic. Why not leave such hair-splitting issues to the body of the article where they can be covered, and simply omit the word "monotheism" from the intro? Drogo Underburrow 08:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, it is somewhat distortive to present this as a compromise: hasn't the goal here been precisely to remove the mention of monotheism from the introduction, or barring that, to conspicuously hobble it?

I don't have a problem with challenging this in an appropriate section later on in the article (the hair-splitting), but, the straightforward application of standard definitions should come first, without unwarranted qualification. Further, the challenge(s) should be sourced.Timothy Usher 08:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

But the definition is not so straightforwardly applied here. If Christians appear to others to be worshipping multiple gods, and if they express beliefs that others say are polytheistic, then one cannot confidently be sure what they believe. And the dictionary definition is not "claiming to believe in only one God" but "believing in only one God". Drogo Underburrow 09:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What's distortive is to present as fact an opinion not shared by a significant number of groups. As Drogo says - the concept of the Trinity is complex - even Christian denominations such as Jehovah's Witnesses would not agree with mainstream Christian groups on this one. No one is trying to "hobble" anything - we are writing an encyclopedia not an apologist statement. Sophia 09:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

But the determination of monotheism by its standard definition is itself not complex, nor is it controversial, except according to the original research/philosophical speculations and interpretations occuring on this page.Timothy Usher 09:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The internal definitions and beliefs of a group are not universal facts to be accepted by all. It may come as a suprise to you that many do not agree but the article needs to be NPOV. [8] [9] [10] Sophia 10:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

They may not all agree on what exactly the trinity is, but i've never heard of a single group of Christianity or ever heard of or talked to any Christian who has said, with confidence, that they believe in three separate gods and worship them all. The trinity can be as complex and as complicated as people want it to be, but in the end, who is actually worshipping Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost as three compleatly separate gods? Because if nobody is, then there is no polytheism here, whether the trinity is a confusing definition or not. Homestarmy 12:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus himself worshipped a God separate from himself. He prayed to the One he called "my God" (John 20:17). I so want to go through all of this and add on "Trinitarian" to every mention of "Christianity" or "Christians", just so it's clear. --Oscillate 14:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: hypostatic union Homestarmy 15:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Man-made Greek-philosopher nonsense (like most of the basis for the Trinity itself). Plus it completely disregards all the mentions of God and Jesus separately after his resurrection. --Oscillate 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because you don't understand, doesn't make it nonsense. O Sancta Simplicitas, ora pro nobis! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because I completely disagree and have hard reasons for such doesn't mean I don't fully understand. Anyway...this is getting out of hand. Apologies. --Oscillate 15:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to Drogo for changing his mind, which is not an easy thing to do under these circumstances. DJ Clayworth 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In such a case, I must say that I disagree..... we want to lay out the debate then, so others who think that Christianity is polytheistic will see the exact argumentation one way or another, and if it has a definition, then perhaps they would change their mind on that matter too. That's why we inform people as much as possible.

KV 15:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The debate over the Trinity is irrelevent and let me tell you why. Those who do not believe in the Trinity content there is only one God. Those who do believe in the Trinity still content there is only one God, just with three parts. By definition of monotheism: "The doctrine or belief that there is only one God," both groups are monotheist. It is not a matter or who is right or wrong, it is a matter of the English language. Notice the definition says nothing about facts but simply doctrine of belief. Every single Christian group--and I challenge you to prove me wrong--believes there is only one God. This is not even debatable. By definition, all Christian groups are monotheist. —Aiden 18:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

More on monotheism (to prevent the thread from getting too long)

The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definitions:

Monotheistic — Of, relating to, or characterized by monotheism; having the beliefs of a monotheist. Of a god: regarded as unique.
Monotheism — The doctrine or belief that there is only one God (as opposed to many, as in polytheism).

Note that it's not defined as "the belief that one believes in and worships one God".

Now I don't think there can be any question that Christian Churches teach that there is one God, or that Christians believe there is one God. The POV is not whether Christians believe that there is one God (it's a fact that they do); the POV is whether or not it is logical or reasonable for them to believe there is one God when they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The very first words in the ancient Nicene Creed are Credo in unum Deum — I believe in one God. The (also ancient) Athanasian Creed says something like "So is the Father God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God. And yet they are not three gods but One God." I think we're getting confused about whether the issue is whether Christianity teaches that there is one God (which it does, and which is what monotheism means) or whether it's logical for them to teach that when they recognize Three Persons as One God. Even Moslems, if they doubt the logic of the Christian position, cannot deny that Christianity teaches that there is one God.

If I state officially that my bedroom wallpaper is pink, and then elaborate on it so that you realize I think the colour is a mixture of blue and yellow, you can then say that my wallpaper is green, or that I'm crazy to say that it's pink, but you cannot deny that I state officially that it is pink. (Not that I'd want to imply that the doctrine of the Trinity is as crazy as thinking that blue and yellow make pink — but just giving an example that for you to acknowledge that I officially say something does not mean that you have to think it makes sense.)

In my view, to challenge the monotheistic nature of Christianity based on Islamic belief that Christians can't really believe in one God is a little bit like denying the theistic nature of Christianity based on atheists' belief that there is no God, so Christians can't really be worshipping Him — it's not a theistic religion, because although they think they worship a God, they don't really, since there is no God for them to worship.

Ask any Christian priest or theologian or peasant or seven-year-old child from a catechism class "how many Gods are there", and you will always get the same answer — "one". Because that is what Chrisianity teaches. I stress again that monotheism is not the belief that one believes in one God: it is the belief that there is one God, without reference to whether or not the believer can logically hold that belief in combination with his or her other beliefs. AnnH ♫ 13:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to clarify something else — Christians do not "worship" the Virgin Mary or the saints, according to the meaning of "worship" in modern English. Words do change their meanings over the centuries. Consider how "presently" changed from "immediately" to "in a little while" to "currently" (which is not universally regarded as correct at the moment but will probably be codified in dictionaries in the next fifty years if people continue to use it that way). It's not inconceivable that one might find an old Catholic book that mentions the "worship" of Mary, but that is according to the archaic meaning of worship, which is simply "honour". As the Protestant Book of Common Prayer has in the marriage ceremony — "With this ring I thee wed: with my body I thee worship: and with all my worldly goods I thee endow." Because "worship" now means "adore", you will never find a modern Catholic book that mentions "worship" of Mary. And despite my huge liking for archaic words, I find it more sensible to avoid "worship" in this context, as it can so easily be misunderstood. AnnH ♫ 13:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You've made extremely good points to the effect that Christianity is indeed monotheistic. The problem is that this is a major controversy and Wikipedia is not allowed to take a side on it. We can lay out the evidence, but we cannot specifically say that it is or isn't monotheistic while there is this disagreement between billions of people. Now, the argument that we should then logically ignore theism altogether because atheists believe there is no God is fallacious, a straw man. I have seen no evidence or ever heard any atheist who claims that Christians are atheists because God doesn't actually exist. They claim Christians are wrong, but they do not deny that they are theistic. Muslims actually do deny that Christians are monotheistic, and it is likely part of a plan to make them become monotheistic by joining Islam (back from the early days where they wanted lots of converts). Athiests aren't going to want Christians to become theistic, they already think that they are. Now on that note, we cannot state that God exists either :) We can most certainly state that Christians believe they're monotheistic, though I think that that is making it sound like they really aren't. We cannot straight out say that it is monotheistic, which is why I suggested "is generally regarded as monotheistic" which is factually correct and doesn't suggest that they aren't.

KV 14:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Then why does Wikipedia list Zoroastrianism as a monotheistic faith, without such equivocation? I sense a double standard at work here. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, there is no controversy whether Christianity is a monotheistic religion but whether it is the true religion or a consistent religion etc.

Also, if mass disagreement matters: do we state Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China? Do we state that biological evolution is not factual? Did we state two weeks ago that the results of the Italian elections were unclear? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity was claimed unequivocably as a monotheistic religion until we came to know claims against that. Until we know of one against Zoroastrianism, we don't put it there, as per WP:NOR. If we didnt' know of a claim against Christianity, we wouldn't cast doubt at all. There is no double standard, just different evidence facing each one, the most important of which is that no one or group of note claims Zoroastrianism as being polytheistic, and there is someone or group of note (i.e. Muslims) who claim that Christianity is polytheistic.

And there is a cliam that they are not really monotheistic, those are the words used. We should be stating that China thinks that it is, and I'm sure we do. We don't state that Christianity is polytheistic, we state that Muslims think it is. We do not state that biological evolution is factual, but offset the debate between it and Creationism and let the reader decide, by placing the facts, as required in WP:NPOV and what I specifically suggested. I even drew parallels to Hinduism, also accused of Polytheism when they consider themselves Monotheistic, and with good reason. It's the same concept in fact, of the many being one. And yes, we do mention that the Italian elections were unclear if they were, and that there is a controversy over who won. So three yes's at you Str.

KV 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read the 'Martyrdom of Polycarp', you'll see that after his arrest, the Romans accused Polycarp and Christians in general of atheism because he refused to worship the Roman gods; so at the coliseum, they asked him to recant by saying "Away with the atheists!" He said the words, but gestured towards the crowd as he did so, meaning that he considered the Roman public atheists because they didn't believe in the god of Christianity. So 'atheism' at least used to be used to mean disbelief in a particular god or pantheon.

Are the claims against Christianity's monotheism really claims that Christians don't believe or teach there is one god? Do we have anything that demonstrates that Islam in general thinks Christianity believes in many gods, or just some outspoken apologists? Wesley 16:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Monothesism and Wiki's Razor

OK, so I made up the term as a tip to Ockam's Razor!

This whole discussion is very nice, but the WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:NOR policies require all this to be documented. So, folks, everything should be sustaiable from legitimate sources. Who's got them? --CTSWyneken 10:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Be careful you don't cut yourself! Actually you'll find a lot of quotes by Christian sites saying it's monotheistic. That's not the same as saying it as a fact. You either say Christianity defines itself as such or avoid it in the intro and explain the unique Christian concept of monotheism a bit later on in the article. Sophia 11:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sophia! At this stage, I'm not suggesting any text one way or another. What I want to see is if we have references here. Who says Christianity is monotheistic and who says it is not? That's all I'm up to. Also, I'm interested in all of the text that talks about Christian monotheism. On the "Christianity is monotheistic" side, we do not have to note just Christian sources.

In short, going both ways, where is this stuff from? --CTSWyneken 15:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a reference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference! Can you tell me where in the doc is says "modified" monotheism? --CTSWyneken 15:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Four types of monotheism and the exercise of a double standard.

This whole discussion is rather silly. Monotheism is defined as "belief in one God." Christians believe in one God, and that makes Christianity monotheistic. The only arguments I've seen against this statement is that Christianity is not monothestic by the standards of Islam or Judaism. All that means is that Christian beliefs are different from Islamic beliefs and Judaic beliefs, which should be a no-brainer since they are today distinct religions.

Is Judaism monotheistic? Yet the Qur'an states that Judaism strayed from monotheism: "The Jews call Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Jesus the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!" (Qu'ran 9:30). Uzair=Ezra. Are we then to favor the Islamic view of Judaism over Judaic beliefs? Or, if we prefer to say that religious Jews believe what Judaism teaches, should not the same be said of Christianity? To do otherwise would be to exercise a double standard and violate WP:NPOV.

For that matter, Wikipedia lists Zoroastrianism as a monotheistic faith. Zorastrianism (mostly) ~~worships~~ acknowledges two gods, the good Ahura Mazda and the evil Angra Mainyu; I recently discovered that some Zoroastrians worship a third god, the neutral Zurvan, who is the father of both. AFAIK Zoroastrianism makes no claim that these three persons are of one substance, or are otherwise united in one God. If Wikipedia is to list Zoroasrianism as a monotheistic faith, without qualifiers, shouldn't Wikipedia do the same for Christianity? To do otherwise would be to exercise a double standard, and violate both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 13:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Motion to declare Archola the winner of the debate? Homestarmy 14:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I'd like to see some citations, all I've ever seen is that Zoroastrians see this second "god", which they don't consider a god, for there is only "God", is rather similar to Satan and was never worshipped, but rather despised. That's like saying that Christians believe in Satan, therefore they worship Satan. Elaboration and citation would have to be on the third god that is father of them both. And is there anyone who actually accuses Zoroastrianism to be polytheistic, as there is for Christianity? When there is a serious claim made by a large amount of people, which Timothy Usher is demanding proof of it being a large amount, fair enough, it is not NPOV to take sides. If such claims are publicly made by a similar large group on Zoroastrianism, then of course the same must apply. But unless there is such a claim against them, according to WP:NOR, this is no place to premiere it. It would be no violation of either NPOV or NOR to state it for Christianity and not Zoroastrianism if there is a claim by a major group against Christians but not Zoroastrians. In fact, to do so would be a violation of both. That's a very bad twist of policy you gave there. If there's more above, I'll have to check later, I'm in a hurry right now.

KV 14:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I've never heard Zoroastrianism defined as "polytheistic" either, but I've far more often seen Zoroastrianism described as bitheistic or dualistic than as monotheistic (in fact, I've only ever seen Wikipedia define Zoroastrianism as monotheistic). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always had the impression that Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu were of equal power in Zoroastrianism. I can say for sure that Christianity views God as omnipotent and Satan as a fallen angel of considerable, but limited, power. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I learned of it for the first time in a History class where it was called the world's first monotheistic religion (which I do happen to disagree with, I consider Egypt's religion to be predominately monotheistic, with the same concept as Christianity and Hinduism. And yes, their devil is of equal power, but not quite God. It's a battle between good and evil, and the Zoroastrians chose a side and I'd have to research further in. But if you can find a reputable source that calls them dualistic or bitheistic, then by all means you should add that into Zoroastrianism. No one is telling you to not do so if it is true. What's more, I'll help you make any debates to get that in, if you can provide a reputable source.

KV 14:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

KV is right in saying that Zoroastrians do not worship Ahriman. However, they do acknowledge the existence of Ahriman not as a mere evil force or personage (as Satan is viewed by Christians) but one of equally divine status with Ahura-Mazda. So they believe in two gods while they worship only one of them. (I am not commenting in this or that way about the third god mentioned as I don't know anything about them). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

From the little reading I have just done it does seem like wikipedia does "over egg the pudding" with regards to Zoroastrianism. Encyclopedia Britannica (arrgh) describes it as containg both monotheistic and dualistic features and most sites I have found echo this. Sophia 15:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll make note of it on the Zoroastrianism page to get things moving to change this. Please have sources ready.

KV 15:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

KV explained why Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic faith. It occurs to me that Zoroastrians would consider bitheism to be a misunderstanding of their religion, just as Christians consider tritheism to be a misunderstanding of our religion. It would solve the double standard to say that outsiders sometimes consider Zoroastrianism to be bitheistic rather than monotheistic, although I wonder if Zoroastrians might consider that to be an attack on their religion?

Closer to home, I think the real issue is that use of the word "person" (persona in Latin) can lead to confusion. The term used in Greek, hypostasis, has a more specific meaning. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Archola, you are right. "Person" as it is used in the Latin creed didn't mean what the word means today. In the ancient latin it was denoting a mask, as used in theatre performances - the employment of the term in Christology however contributed to the development of the modern meaning of the word. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

After a quick scan on Google books, I've listed a few sources on Zoroastrianism as dualism and/or ditheism. One source in particular lists these labels as Islamic and Christian misunderstandings of Zoroastrianism. By the same standard, I assert that labeling Christianity as tritheistic is a misunderstanding of the trinity. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen this because of a comment left on the Zoroastrianism page. As regards Christianity, there is legitimate dispute about the meaning of the trinity in relation to tritheism, and that's been longstanding. Hence the existence of Unitarianism and all the argy-bargy about the precise wording of the Nicene creed, so it seems reasonable to address this issue. On Zoroastrianism, think part of the confusion is about whether we are talking about modern Zoroastrianism or about ancient beliefs. Modern Zoroastrianism is clearly monotheistic, though it accepts the existance and power of Ahriman (Angria Mainu). At one point in the ancient history of the religion there was a monist sect that gave significance to Zurvan (ie, Time) as a pre-personal force from which both beings emerged. Paul B 16:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I just lost a huge amount of text, so I'll be briefer than planned.... it doesn't matter if it's considered by them an attack on their religion, WP:NPOV#Religion deals with this issue, we're here for NPOV not turning religion pages into what adherents of that religion want you to see. I have seen the same happen with Hermetism and Hermetism. If people don't outright delete what I have added and either reword it to a NPOV format or add information that casts doubt on what I've added, I'm fine. I just don't like when they remove things outright because they don't agree with them. I even learned a new word when they changed it from being pantheistic to panentheistic, and I read what panentheism was and found they found a better description. None of this was an attack on my religion, it was making it more NPOV (with the exception of outright deletion).

And if modern Zoroastrianism is indeed monotheistic while the ancient wasn't, then WP:NPOV#Religion says there as well that we say what they used to believe as well. So if that is true, we have to make it clear that modern Zoroastrianism may be monotheistic (if that is fully accepted and no one casts doubt on that) but used to be more dualistic.

KV 16:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism has always been a monotheistic religion. What you are talking about is the dualistic approaches that have sometimes been attributed to it. However, It was never a polytheist religion. What has this article got to do with Zoroastrianism? Please discuss there instead. Reading above there are many incorrect statements. "Angra Mainyu" is not worshiped in Zoroastrianism, only one God is worshipped. The evil spirit was never "worshiped" and it is not worshiped in modern times. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say also that Christianity has always been a monotheistic religion, whether unitarian, binitarian or trinitarian, we all worship one God alone. The only reason I brought up Zoroastrianism is to compare Christianity to other forms of monotheism, ie Islam, Judaism and Zoroastrianism. Some of this discussion has also spilled over at at Talk:Zoroastrianism. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say both are monotheistic religions as well, but that's not the topic, the topic is that accusations have been brought against them, of being tritheitic or ditheistic, and we must cover those claims, both the pros and cons.

KV 17:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reposting this here in case people don't see it far far above (I had no idea the talk page had gotten so long!):

Christians believe that there is one God consisting of three persons - see the Athanasian Creed, for a detailed summary of Trinitarian faith. One quote should suffice to put this argument to bed (he said, hopefully):

We worship one God in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity; neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the Substance...There are not three Gods, but one God..

If those outside the Christian faith wish to maintain that the faith is not, in fact, monotheistic, this should be perhaps included in the page Criticisms of Christianity, and not in an article that describes the tenets of the faith itself. Fishhead64 17:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Arch bringing up incorrect statements will not back up what you are saying. In Christianity the trinity is part of the belief but it all comes down to one-ness of God. This has nothing to do with Zoroastrianism where spirits are nowhere as important as the main deity. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this article cannot presume to discuss the tenets of other faith traditions, nor get into what constitutes monotheism. That should be confined to the article monotheism. This article deals with what Christians actually believe, and Criticisms of Christianity deals with objects to those claims. Fishhead64 17:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Christianity, not a Christian article. The claim that the trinty is not monotheism is a legitimate argument - that is, a "POV" - which is worth representing. Trinitarian Christians obviously would not agree with that view, others groups would. Also, the view that the trinity is not properly monotheistic is not a criticism unless you believe that monotheism is somehow obviously right. There has been a long discussion on the Hinduism page about this very issue. Paul B 17:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, one could say, "Christians believe x, though some observers of the faith claim not x." This is why I said that much of this could be shuttled to the Critcisms article. Fishhead64 17:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

When a religion says it is something that it is not, that is a criticism. But the problem does not lie in that it is a criticism, perhaps it could be fleshed out better there. But we cannot simply declare that Christianity is a monotheism, right or wrong, that is a POV. That is why we balance it with the opposing view that it may not be, as put forth by a major group, whether or not most muslims understand it (quite frankly, most Christians dont' understand the Trinity to begin with). It is a violation of the triadic policy (consider WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR the tritheistic, but unitarian God of Wikipedia) of NPOV. We must not take sides in such a debate, but only lay out evidence. We cannot state that Christianity is monotheistic, only that Side A does, and Side B says it's not, and Side A is bigger. This is why Side B says not, this is how Side A defends.

KV 17:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize to Kash again, as I did on that other page. My main point was that a single standard should apply to the term "monotheism," and beyond that to any term used in comparative religion. However, if it's a misunderstanding to call Zoroastrianism bitheism, it is a similar misunderstanding to call Christianity tritheism. As Kash says, it call comes down to the oneness of God. By that standard, both Zoroastrianism and Christianity are monotheism, even though we have different understandings of God. Ditto Judaism, Samaritanism and Islam. More specifically, Trinitarian Christians believe in three members (or persons or hypostases) in one God, which is still monotheism but is different from the views of the other religions. Fishhead64 also has good points about the appropriate place for some of this discussion. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: I should clarify that I am not pushing a pro-Christian POV; I am merely asking for equal treatment. Misunderstanding or not, we can certainly say that such claims have been made (and cite who) against both religions. So yes, Christians profess monotheism, others may not agree that we are monotheistic. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why Christianity needs to define itself against Zoroastrianism, or why it was necessary to pull Zoroastrianism into the equation, but I've been asked for my opinion, so here goes:

First off, when attempting to define Zoroastrianism (even against something else), its important to distinguish between Zoroastrianism and Mazdaism. Zoroastrianism refers to the teachings of Zoroaster (which are of course subject to interpretation), while Mazdaism is the ancient term for the belief in a transcendental Ahura Mazda. Today the two terms are synonymous, but that was not always so (because of the differences in interpretation).
Mazdaism is and has always been a monotheistic religion, in that its adherents believe(d) in the existence of one God. Period.
It may be worth noting that Mazdaism (and the other, now extinct, brand of Zoroastrianism too) predate Zoroastrianism by a long shot: the proto-Indo-Iranian culture was henotheistic, but Zoroaster's teachings were anything but that.
Zoroastrianism meets the theological definition of dualism, in that it accepts two basic opposing principles: good and evil. (Is there any near- or middle eastern religion that is different?)
Mazdaism does not meet the philosophical definition of dualism. In modern Zoroastrianism, good and evil are matters of the mind and heart, and not substantial entities.
Zoroastrianism is a monist religion only in the context of the Zoroastrian view of creation: Ahura Mazda is _explicitely_ the only uncreated being, ergo transcendental.
Zoroastrianism has evolved and morphed significantly over the millenia, and various strains have come and gone over that time (comparable with the various Christian sects that appear and disappear). But unlike most other religions, the Zoroastrianism of today is relatively coherent. There are factions for sure (eg Ilm-e-Kshnoom), but these are either numerically insignificant, or are not doctrinally significant enough to be distinguishable from "mainstream" Zoroastrianism.

Addressing some of the points made by others:

Early Zoroastrianism/Mazdaism:
- In the Gathas, Zoroaster's doesn't even personalize evil as a Satan or whatever, it is simply a/the "Lie", which can (subject to context) be interpreted any number of ways.
  - One extreme is the Lie is just a bad influence, in that anything not maintained in a particular state will eventually fall apart (be corrupted). In modern science, one would speak of an effect of the chaos theory. :)
  - The other extreme is as a diametric opposite to "The Truth", which is a manifestation of Ahura Mazda. This is tricky (or subtle), because in Zoroaster's view, Ahura Mazda created everything, and Ahura Mazda's creation's are all good. That implies that the Creator also created the Lie. However, there is an escape from that contradition in the fundamental view (and perhaps the most important of Zoroaster's contributions to religious philosophy) that Ahura Mazda has given all individuals a "free will", and the Lie, although initially good, chose to oppose Ahura Mazda.
- Important to the whole shebang is the idea that Zoroaster, though conceiving that Ahura Mazda was opposed by something not-good, saw Ahura Mazda as the one who would ultimately triumph. In other words, evil had a free hand for a limited amount of time, after which Ahura Mazda would ultimately prevail. This is however not a blank-check for humanity. In Zoroaster's view, Humans must do their utmost to prevent chaos from ruining everything for themselves and their neighbours.
- Although its important to note that Zoroaster stopped short of conceiving Ahura Mazda as omnipotent (which would also be the case in any religion that has an anti-God figure), its equally important to underscore that Ahura Mazda was and is the God of Mazdaism. Angra Mainyu is conceptually an interloper, a spoiler, a pain in the behind that will make your life miserable if you let him. In Mazdaism, Ahriman is not even close in stature to Ahura Mazda, the uncreated Creator of all. However, Ahura Mazda is not immanent, i.e. does not act within the physical world, which is something that Ahriman does. Ahura Mazda does not micro-manage. :)
Mid-term Zoroastrianism:
- The Truth being opposed by the Lie was initially (up until the Sassanid era probably), seen not as facets of Ahura Mazda as they are now (more on that below). Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) as the later personification of the Lie and his army of wrong-doers are all a reintroduction of proto-Indo-Iranian divinities, just as the Zoroastrian angels and archangels are. Only this time, on the "wrong" side of the fence.
- That Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu were brothers is a repudiation of Zoroastrianism's basic tenet that Ahura Mazda created everything. This "Twin Spirit" theory is today called the "Zurvan Heresy", so named after a Yazata who was elevated over both Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. Zurvanism, which incorporated much of Mazdaist belief, is technically speaking another religion (vis-a-vis Mazdaism, which is today the only strain of Zoroastrianism, so the two terms are now synonymous). Zurvanism rests on an interpretation of one passage of Zoroaster's hymns in which he refers to good and evil as the twin spirits, and it is only by prototyping good and evil as beings that one can come to the conclusion that the twins referred to are Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. Zurvanism was dead by the 10th century, but ironically enough, it was Zurvan-influenced texts that were first studied in the west (Thomas Hyde, Historia religionis veterum Persarum, 1700), which probably led to the widespread idea that Zoroastrianism was either monist, or monolatric, or both. (Remember this is the 1700s I'm referring to, not exactly an age known for its enlightened analysis of non-European culture)
Modern Mazdaism/Zoroastrianism:
- In the late 19th century, Martin Haug presented a new interpretation of the 'Twin Spirit' passage to the Parsi community in Bombay (Essays on the sacred language, writings, religion of the Parsis, 1884). The new interpretation pitted Angra Mainyu against Spenta Mainyu, which Haug presented as a "Holy Spirit" equivalent. The Parsis had recently been under attack from Christian missionaries (in particular following the publication of Dr. J. Wilson's The Parsi Religion, Unfolded, refuted, and in contrast to Christianity, 1843), and quickly took over Haug's interpretation as their own since it provided an escape from the dualism problem once and for all. Parsi papers that incorporated the theory eventually reached the west, substantiating Haug's interpretation, and that's as it stands now.
- In 'discussions' of the religion, it is often forgotten that Zoroastrianism has no central authority, and priests do not take orders from any superior instance. In other words, the doctrine is pretty much however a priest may choose to interpret it (a controlling power lies with the community which hires him to serve them, and an excessively radical or conservative approach can cost him his job). By not being subject to any authority, the religion is flexible at adapting to external influences, social and political, and its practices have been known change in minutes if necessary - at least one of which has survived for over a thousand years. :)

-- Fullstop 11:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

While the issue at hand is Christianity, your monograph on Mazdaism serves to remind us just how complex such doctrinal issues can be. I would say that this is an area where even reasonable interpretations are necessarily suspect and we should stick very close to blandly reporting what reliable sources assert. This is why we should admit that Christians consider their religion monotheistic while others, notably Muslims, disagree. We should not state which side (if any) is correct. Al 12:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I did overdo it, didn't I? :) I think the request for an opinion was a reaction to a remark from KV at Talk:Zoroastrianism#Aspects of Dualism, in which KV opens the subject by saying:

We've had this discussion on the Christianity page, Talk:Christianity#Four_types_of_monotheism_and_the_exercise_of_a_double_standard.

It's regarding Zoroastrianism being considered monotheism, without any doubt shed on it, in violation of WP:NPOV. People are gathering references right now, and it is intended to change it to mention that there are both monotheistic and dualistic aspects to Zoroastrianism.

KV 15:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

With respect to what non-adherents might believe of a religion: They aren't authoritative sources, ergo don't belong in wp article. The NPOV question gets tricky when there are conflicting points of view among the adherents, but conflicting opinions are only presentable if they are socially and chronologically compatible. As to stating which side is correct: Well, that would be original research. -- Fullstop 14:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Authoritative about what? The Pope can speak authoritatively of what Christians believe. He can insist, for example, that Christianity is monotheistic, and we should certainly include this, properly cited. Any imam, for example, can speak authoritatively about what Muslims believe about Christianity, even if it is that Christians are not true monotheists, and we should include this, too. Having included both, it would be biased to assert that the Pope is right and that imam is wrong. The issue of what constitutes monotheism is a subtle one, depending both on what status is ascribed to Jesus and on what the minimum requirements for godhood are. These are too subtle for us to rule on using our own authority. Al 15:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And thus the cranks and critics are given the keys to the automobile. This is the prime weakness of the wikipedia's ill-defined NPOV model. People of sense, take up your keyboards and type! --Rekleov 15:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Pope can speak authoritatively of what Christians believe. " Um, no, the Pope can speak authoritatively on what Roman Catholics believe. As a Protestant, I can definitely say that the Pope does not speak for me, and I'm sure Orthodox Christians would say the same thing. As for the Imam, I would expect that he's be speaking either for Sunnis or Shi'ites, but not necessarily for all Muslims.

With respect to Zoroastrianism, I just thought it fair to compare Christianity to something besides Islam for a change (not to mention the odd fact that magi show up in the New Testament). The only point I was trying to make was that the two articles were being treated differently vis-a-vis outsiders' perspectives. If we're talking about the doctrine of a particular relgion, an adherant is more likely to understand his/her religious doctrine than an outsider would. There are, however, other ways in which an outsider's perspective can be valuable. So, yes, I gathered some sources on Zoroastrianism at KV's request, without trying to prove or disprove that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic. That wasn't my point. My point is that the same standard should be applied to all religious articles, regardless of the religion. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

KV's Version pertaining to monotheism

Since Aiden or Pecher, one of the two, simply undid it without thought or comment. I'd like to see what others think of the version I made to solve this dillema.

here

KV 18:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it needs a comma or something, it seems a bit out of order gramatically and it looked like a fragment of sorts. Homestarmy 18:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

(Partially copied from above.) It's not a matter of being "generally seen"; it's a matter of definition. The debate over the Trinity being one or three Gods is irrelevent and let me tell you why: Those who do not believe in the Trinity content there is only one God. Those who do believe in the Trinity still content there is only one God. (Refer to any Christian creed or text for confirmation.) By definition of monotheism--"The doctrine or belief that there is only one God"--both groups are monotheist. It is not a matter or who is right or wrong, it is a matter of the English language. Notice the definition says nothing about facts but simply doctrine of belief. Every single Christian group--and I challenge you to prove otherwise--believes there exists only one God. Thus, by definition, all Christian groups are monotheist.

I really don't see why we have to qualify something that by definition is what it says it is. While Islam contents Christians believe in three Gods, Christians none the less believe that there is only one. There is a difference and the latter determines what consitutes monotheism. It seems to me to be a big double standard that people are so adamant about qualifying everything Christianity says about its own beliefs but I don't see this happening anywhere else. There is no reason why we should have to say "generally considered". —Aiden 19:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's a logical contradiction to say that what Christians believe is not what Christians believe. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What Xns believe and what they proclaim are in this case not entirely commensurate. At one time or another Xn people think in terms of tritheism. The doctrine itself has never been claimed to make any sense. It was Xns who long ago tried to change the definition of monotheism. It was a compromise that preserved claims re Jesus' divinity and claims of monotheism - and everyone was just supposed to stop making waves about it. Should the articles on Mormons & JWs say flat out in the intro they are Xn religions? To say Xty is a monotheistic religion is to paint with too broad a brush - not entirely inaccurate, but not entirely indisputable - better to intro with belief in Jesus' divinity & Trinity.--JimWae 19:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

JimWae wrote, "It was Xns who long ago tried to change the definition of monotheism."

Was the term even used back then? This source dates it to 1660[11], not sure if this is accurate (?). I doubt there was any question at that time that Christianity was among the religions defined as monotheistic. You assume that there is a platonic definition of Monotheism that transcends the actual word "monotheism"; this constitutes original research.Timothy Usher 19:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "claim of monotheism" because monotheism does not imply proof, it implies belief. If Christians claim there is one God, then by definition they are monotheists--believing in one God. That claim does not have to be substaintiated for us to say they are such. The definition revolves solely around what someone believes, not what others think is really true. Believing in one God is by definition monotheism, Jim. Frankly, I don't see why you fail to grasp this concept. —Aiden 20:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason there is still a debate is because he would like to substitute his own definition for what is actually found in dictionaries[12], [13], [14], [15].Timothy Usher 20:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So why do people continue to reinstate this modified version with no consensus? —Aiden 23:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason is that while Christians say they believe in one god, editors think that a significant group is of the opinion that Christians do not believe in one god. The definition in many dictionaries is not "Those who profess to believe" but "those who believe". Drogo Underburrow 23:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite.

mon·o·the·ism

   The doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

Most dictionaries say "belief that there is one God" not "belief in one God." Some Muslims might believe Christians believe in three Gods, but think they're one. However, the definition only requires belief that there is only one God. Christians believe there is only one God. Whether or not they're right, and whether or not the one God they believe in is actually three is irrelevent. Christianity is by definition monotheistic. No Christian believes there are three Gods. —Aiden 00:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that Moslems seriously dispute that Christians believe that there is one God (the standard definition of montheism). Their disagreement, if there is one — and I don't think anyone has provided a convincing source yet — is over whether or not Christians, who believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, can be considered as worshipping one God in a truly monotheistic way. But the definition of monotheism is "believing that there is one God" (which Christians unquestionably do), not "worshipping one God in a way that is considered to be monotheistic". You will not find dispute over whether or not Christian Churches teach that there is one God. The only dispute is whether it's logical to teach there is one God, while worshipping the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And the logic of the belief has nothing to do with the definition of monotheistic. AnnH ♫ 00:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Whether or not Christians worship one of three Gods is irrelevent to the definition of monotheism. So long as they believe there is only one God, they are monotheist. —Aiden 02:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Every single Christian group--and I challenge you to prove otherwise--believes there exists only one God" I can prove otherwise very quickly, and that is mentioning the Cainites. The Cainites believed that there were several gods, and that the god of the old testament was not the same, and actually was evil btw, as the god who created the world and sent Jesus.

Now, Christians believe in A) God the Father, B) God the Son, and C) God the Holy Spirit. I do not see any evidence that Christians even thought that these three were one originally. I placed a fact tag AFTER monotheistic and still no one bothered to provide a reference, my demand for a citation was simply deleted. Now, Christians had no problem telling the Northern Pagans that they were worshipping Satan, which was their POV on the matter. Now, if Muslims think that Christians worship three god, that is equally their POV on the matter. And according to NPOV policy, we have to cover it all.

Now, no one has made much of a fuss about my actual version, it's been the same debate other than a claim that a comma missing. Now, let me tell you what's good about this version, that you should try to see. It does cover both sides, it gives the benefit of the doubt to Christianity, and it explains the nature of the debate. It expands the knowledge of the reader. That is why it is great, you have a large amount of evidence that the Muslims are wrong, and you can lay that information out, but you cannot decide on the page who is right. It's blatantly POV to state that Christianity is monotheistic when so many think otherwise. It's blatantly POV to state that it's not. You must leave the gray area and leave it for the leader to decide.

From WP:NPOV: "We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can."

KV 18:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is sufficient to say that Christianity professes belief in one God substiting in three Persons, dimensions, or modes generally referred to as the "Father," the "Son," and the "Holy Spirit." One could reference the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by the vast majority of Christians as a sufficient statement of faith. It begins, "We believe in one God..." Then it could be mentioned that some have objected that Christianity is polytheistic or not strictly monothesitic, because of its Trinitarian belief aboyt the nature of the Godhead. Fishhead64 18:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a footnote after monotheism at one point [16], but Aiden removed it (next edit). Also, I've been suggesting some variation of "profess monotheism," but some editors have raised objections to that. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

If you are missing recent conversations, please check the new /Archive 30. 322kb file size is just rediculous. Hope this doesn't cause problems, but I tried not to touch anything that had been edited within the last week. --Andrew c 18:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki's Razor Again

All the above is very nice, but does anyone have a source for their opinions beyond SlimVirgin? --CTSWyneken 23:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.dictionary.com —Aiden 00:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me make your link a little more specific: Christianity. It is from Princeton University and it says: "Christianity n 1: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior." This supports the claim in the first paragraph. Anyone have a quote that differs with this one? --CTSWyneken 00:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Which point are you requesting a citation for, "monotheistic" or "religion?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Monotheistic religion," which is, I think, the debate du jour. Aiden's above does this for the Christianity is monotheistic viewpoint. So, we now have support to say "Christianity is a Monotheistic Religion." I supect there are sources that disagree. Does someone have one? --CTSWyneken 00:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been "accused" of insisting on sources in the past. I'm going try the opposite side for once, and appeal the need for sources with a bit of logical argument, just to see how it feels. That Muslims do not believe that Jesus is God I think can be accepted here without proof. Christians do believe that Jesus is God. Moslims do not accept the idea that Jesus is God, and seeing that Christians do worship Jesus as a god, Muslims must conclude that Christians worship multiple Gods; or they have to agree that Jesus is God. Since they don't, they must have the opinion, in order to be Muslims, that Christianity is not monotheistic. Drogo Underburrow 00:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

One would think so, but it has been challenged here. Our policies read as if everything must be sourced. Unless they are modified to allow for common knowledge, we must source everything. What you or I think, especially on controversial matters, doesn't count. Where does it come from -- that's all that matters. So, since there is little hope of agreement here, I bring forth the razor. Is there a source someone wants to bring forth that says otherwise? --CTSWyneken 00:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think it's pretty common knowledge that monotheism is belief in one God. And since nobody has yet to prove that Christians believe there are three Gods, I fail to see any issue or even need for source. —Aiden 00:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to prove that Christians believe there are three Gods, it only has to be demonstrated that a large group of people (Muslims) believe that Christians worship more than one god. CTS asks for sources for this claim, but that is not needed, as the claim is not being put into the article. It simply is a reason not to assert as a fact that Christians are monotheistic, and instead insert that they make the claim of being so, or however you wish to word it. That aside, lets not wiki-lawyer here; does anybody doubt what I said, that logic alone shows that Moslems cannot accept the Christian claim without contradicting their own beliefs? Drogo Underburrow 00:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, please take another look at the definition. Whether Christians worship one God, three gods, or 10,000 gods is irrelevent. Christians believe there exists only one God. The fact that according to Christian texts and Christian beliefs there is only one God is enough to constitute a belief in monotheism. Again, the definition of monotheism hinges only on belief, not on fact. No Christians believes there is more than one God. —Aiden 00:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Do they believe? We cannot simply take them at their word, for that is only proof about what they profess to believe. No, to know what they truly believe, we would have to know their hearts, which is impossible. So asking Christians does not decide the issue. Next, do Moslems feel Christians do not believe in one God? Yes, they have to, or they contradict their own beliefs. Drogo Underburrow 00:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So if Muslims have to contradict their own beliefs for the Christian view to be presented, then we should obviously make Christians contradict their beliefs (as all Christians claim that monotheism is essential to their religion) so the Islamic view can be presented? Hmm. » MonkeeSage « 00:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The solution is very simple. Either omit the word "monotheism" entirely from the intro, or state in a way that can be shown to be factual, namely stating that Christians profess that their religion is monotheistic, or some variant of this. This is not an attempt to cast doubt on the sincerity of Christian belief, but instead is necessary to not take a POV stand on whether the Trinity dogma is correct or not. Drogo Underburrow 01:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, I'm not sure how you could call a matter of value judgment, which is based ones basic beliefs, a matter of "fact"...how could you check if Christianity is monotheistic? Do you, like, weigh it on a scale, or see how fast it falls in a vacuum or something? I think that no matter what alleged "disproof" you could pose, a Christian could always claim that some things are mysterious to finite minds and still claim to believe in only one God; or just add another, up-to-then undiscovered attribute, to the one God (a la some forms of Hinduism). Anyhow, here are some non-Christian sources (some "hostile", some reputable and ostensibly disinterested):

"Three of the world's major religions -- the monotheist traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- were all born in the Middle East and are all inextricably linked to one another. Christianity was born from within the Jewish tradition, and Islam developed from both Christianity and Judaism." [17]

"The History of Monotheistic Religion. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have a sense about the origins of their religion." [18]

"The term is applied particularly to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as Zoroastrianism." [19]

". . .the largest monotheistic religious systems: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Sikhism." [20]

"Batak religion is bound up with Islam and Christianity and the majority of Batak are Muslim or Christian. Contact with the monotheistic religions differs greatly from one Batak society to another." [21]

"While this monotheistic religion [Christianity] developed from Judaism, there are several key differences in its teachings." [22]

And I'm sure there are quite few more in the "101,000" results "for christianity "monotheistic religion"" on Google as I only browsed to the third page. » MonkeeSage « 01:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That you cannot "check if Christianity is monotheistic? Do you, like, weigh it on a scale, or see how fast it falls in a vacuum or something?" is precisely why its wrong to state it as a fact. Instead, you treat it like any other opinion, noting who says so. There is no problem here, until people try to treat as fact, matters that are opinions. Drogo Underburrow 02:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Monotheism is the belief. So I'm not sure I understand. Monotheism def.= belief in only one God. So are we going to say "Christians believe that they believe in only one God" and talk about meta-epistemology? And if we're going to do that, then why not just start building an endless chain of gum-wrappers and say "Muslims believe that they believe that Christians do not believe in one God but Christians believe that Muslims do not believe that they believe that Christians believe in more than one God and Muslims believe..."? If we're going to represent the Christian position, then "Christianity is a monotheistic religion" is the only way I see to do it without getting into psychology of belief, self-delusion and meta-epistemic mexican standoffs. Of course Christians claim that they believe what they believe — that is a verbal tautology. Muslims claim that Christians believe wrongly, because according to the Muslim ontology, there cannot be two "persons" who are both God without also being two Gods. But Christians don't share that ontology (at least not the vast majority of Christians), and hence see no problem with the possibility of the Christian belief. To say that "the universe is monotheistic" would be a fact-claim, but so say that "Christianity is monotheistic" would be a description of Christianity according to Christianity (which is the only source of information on Christianity we have, barring the aforementioned excursions into the fuzzy pit of meta-philosophy/psychology which are not of any real help here anyhow). » MonkeeSage « 02:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Put another way: Muslims do not deny that Christians believe in monotheism. One could theoretically argue from Christian practice, or statements Chritians make, or psychological necessity, or what have you, that Christians only think they believe in monotheism, but are really just self-deceived. But that is a very esoteric and unusual argument, and is not the common accusation made by Muslims (and would be very tangled and need alot of sources to even think about including it). Commonly, the accusation is that there cannot exist such a thing as a Trinity, because two "persons" cannot both be one "being" (i.e., God); in other words, the nature of reality is such that a Trinity cannot possibly exist, since monotheism is true, so if Christians would only be consistent (according to Muslim presuppositions), they would have to either embrce tritheism (which is impossible) or give up holding the doctrine of the Trinity (the holding of which is also impossible). So they attempt to construct a logical dilemma by assuming that Christians are monotheistic, and attempt to leave only one horn open: to scrap the doctrine of the Trinity. But this is an ontological argument about the nature of the world more than anything, not a meta-epistemological argument about Christians thinking that thy are monotheistic, but actually believing in polytheism or henotheism or pntheim or whatever. » MonkeeSage « 03:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well said, MonkeeSage. —Aiden 05:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Put another way, I think, is that Christianity professes certain beliefs, one of which is belief in one God, subsisting in three persons. This avoids the sticky use of the word "monotheism," and more precisely defines what it is Christians actually profess - a form of monotheism called Trinitarianism.

I frankly think that it gets us into a bit of a pit if we start trying to adjudicate what constitutes a genuinely monotheistic profession. It should be sufficient to state that Christians profess a monotheisitc belief, and that some observers take issue with this. Fishhead64 18:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Who gets to define the basic tenets of religions in articles about them?

Do their adherents or their adversaries? I think that is the main question we have to keep going back to. The views of the vast majority of a professed religion will always have more relevance in the article about that religion than those of a vast majority of other religions (or no religions). That's just a simple edict of fairness. It would give undue weight to a view from without a group for it to displace the accepted view within the group. Space should be given for dissent and to represent the debates on the issues, but to push aside the most significant view in favor of others, in the name of fair representation, is a contradiction of terms. It is unfair to the group about which the article is written, to force their view to be filtered through the hostile views of outsiders. Those outside views can be represented, but not given equality with or priority over the view of the group in question, as the view of the group, is, by definition, the most important and relevant one to the article. » MonkeeSage « 00:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That isn't how we do things here. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jkelly 01:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A dictionary is pretty neutral. Claiming Christianity is monotheistic does not state as fact that there is one God nor does it state as fact that the Christian God is one and not three. It only states that Christians believe they serve one God. That's all it takes to be monotheistic. —Aiden 01:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with NPOV, which is why I pointed out the NPOV violation of giving undue weight. What is the most revelant, important POV in an article about some dogmatic group? Quite simply, the view of the group! I wonder how long it would take for me to be flamed into oblivion if I tried to insert the idea that many Christians hold about Islam (viz., that it is a tribal moon-god religion that worships a meteorite) into the intro to the article on Islam? Okay, I'll compromise, we can just say that "mabye" that's what Islam is. Yeah, right. Probably take all of three seconds. And for good reason. The antagonistic bias would be just a blatent in doing that a it is here. » MonkeeSage « 01:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The amount of goodwill on this Talk page is somewhat lacking. In any case, I'd venture a guess that most mainstream accounts of Christianity describe it as monotheitic. I suggest that we can, and should, go ahead and describe it as such without anything more than a reference to a mainstream text on the subject. If there is significant disagreement amongst experts, any other view should be mentioned as well, but not in some POV fork. All of the amateur theology (and rude comments about other religions) above seems to ignore the fact that we don't make our own calls on things based on logic, we write from the majority POV, and summarise notable minority ones. Jkelly 01:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

JKelly: You misread, or missed my original post, I believe. I stated that "Space should be given for dissent and to represent the debates on the issues," then went on to say that, while this is true, "to push aside the most significant view in favor of others, in the name of fair representation, is a contradiction of terms." Undue weight involves matters of placement, emphasis and selection of data. In an article about a group and their beliefs it is only fair that the representative views of the group — especially when they are in universal agreement — be given the most weight. Also, I beg your pardon if I offended you by the crude example I gave — I was not representing my own view of Islam, only using an example of a significant minority view that should NOt be given undue weight over the universal consensus of Muslims in the article about their religion. And I might add that Christians find the accusation of polytheism just as rude as the accusation I mentioned, which probably accounts for much of the lack of good-will on this page. For my part, if I have contributed to that lack, I apologize. But I do stand by my points. » MonkeeSage « 01:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that Christians profess monotheism. To me, that is exactly the same thing as monotheism (since monotheism is by definition a belief) but apparently there is some dispute over the definition of term. I also think that "Christians profess monotheism" is more neutral than saying "Christianity is regarded by its followers as monotheistic." The second statement has a negative connotation, is equivical, is weasly, is wordy, and is redundant because any religion is defined by its beliefs. If Christianity were to be defined by the beliefs of Islam, it would be Islam. However, Christianity is not defined by Islam, just as Judaism is not defined by Christianity (a point that has needed to be raised in several articles). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 03:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I can live with "Christians profess monotheism". But like you, I don't see any difference (except grammatically) between the statement "x professes monotheism" and "x is monotheistic". If we take the root — theism — no one thinks saying "Christianity is a theistic religion" means "God really exists" or "the Christian understanding of God is right" or anything like that; simply "belief in God". I'm not sure why the whole paradigm would change just because we add the adjectival qualifier "mono-". Anyhow, I'm tired and typing badly and rambling, so I'm off to bed! :P » MonkeeSage « 04:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Christians profess monotheism" is like saying "Christians believe that they believe there is one God" when "Christians are monotheistic" would be "Christians believe there is only one God." —Aiden 05:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

More specifically, it's like saying, "Christians claim to believe there is one God."Timothy Usher 05:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I profess monotheism all the time, and it's far more than just a claim. But, for the sake of NPOV.... Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 13:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Claim to believe" suggests a suspicion that the believer harbours beliefs different from his/her claim. Why not simply say, "Christians believe in one God subsisting in three Persons - a monotheistic belief called "Trinitarianism"? Fishhead64 19:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Analogy

Heather says, "I have two mommies." Jack Chick disagrees, and says that Heather only has one mommy and one mommy's lesbian lover. Clearly, Heather and Jack mean different things by the word "mommy"; Jack's definition encompasses only biological mommies (and perhaps heterosexual adoptive mommies) whereas Heather's definition is broader. Nonetheless, it is NPOV to say that Heather claims to have two mommies.

Likewise, Jack Chick (who is a Christian) claims to believe in one God. However, Hasan (who is a Muslim) claims that Jack actually believes in three gods. Hasan's claim with regards to Jack is analogous to Jack's claim with regards to Heather. Hasan and Jack are working with different definitions of "God", just as Jack and Heather use different definitions of "mommy". Nonetheless, it is NPOV to say that Jack professes a belief in one God. --FOo 08:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Al 15:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue rests not on the definition of God, but on monotheism--it is the belief that determines whether one is monotheist or not. The definition of monotheism is believing there is only one God while the definition of mother has nothing to do with belief, but with fact. Since Jack believes there is only one God, he is a monotheist by definition. Whether Hasan is right or not is irrelevent. —Aiden 15:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a matter more appropriately dealt with in monotheism - is it really reasonable to expect a summary article to delve int competing claims of what constitutes a genuinely monotheistic faith? Fishhead64 19:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Missing the point

Dear Friends: This discussion misses the point. It makes no difference if something is common knowledge or not, according to WP:CITE. Everything needs to be documented, even Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Anything that is not documented is subject to removal by another editor at any time. WP:V, WP:NOR. So, as silly as it seems, we need to document everything. So, Drogo, my friend, produce a reference that says, "Christianity is not monotheistic" and we can then do a "some"/"others" or change the statement to Christians believe there is only one God, or some such other thing.

At this time, however, we have one citation on this phrase. It is a scholarly dictionary and literally says, without qualification, that Christianity is monotheistic. Until a conflicting cite is provided, that is how it has to stay. --CTSWyneken 03:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Then let me come at it from the other side: what sources say that Christianity is de facto tritheism? OK, some Muslims have made this argument, but is there a passage in the Qur'an that specifically says that Christians worship three gods? Is there a non-Muslim source that makes this claim? Or, are editors merely citing their own personal opinion? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 03:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some relevant verses from the Qur'an:

Jesus never told people to worship him or Mary as gods.^{[Quran 5:116]}
God doesn’t have a son.^{[Quran 10:68]}, ^{[Quran 19:88]}
God doesn’t have a son, and don’t say there is a trinity.^{[Quran 4:171]}
Jesus is not God.^{[Quran 5:17]}, ^{[Quran 5:72]}, ^{[Quran 5:75]}
Don’t take priests, rabbis, monks, or Jesus as your lord.^{[Quran 9:31]}

The first verse states that Jesus never told people to worship him or Mary as gods. Of course this suggests that Christians do this, but recognize this is not a proper critique of Trinitarianism, as Mary is not a member of the trinity, nor does it actually state that Christians are polytheistic.

Only one translation of the last verse speaks of other gods, and even here they're said to be joined with God. The point is better stated as, don't ascribe partners to God.

There is also no reason to accept Muhammad as a reputable scholarly source on Christianity.Timothy Usher 04:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That may be so. However, I would venture to guess that he may qualify as a reputable source regarding what Muslims believe about Christianity. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims, so I think it might be helpful if we didn't exclude their POV, don't you think? Al 04:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I specifically asked about the Qur'an. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't a priori exclude it as a topic of discussion, and the current article doesn't. However:

1) Generic "Muslim opinion" - particularly the unsourced, self-proclaimed "Muslim opinion" courtesy of non-Muslim editors to this talk page, is not a reputable scholarly source as to what Christians believe, and hence it doesn't mean we can't accurately say Christianity is monotheistic in the intro.

2) The Qur'an is not entirely clear in this regard; in the few places that Christian belief is (very briefly) criticized, it never says "Christians are polytheistic".

3) The Qur'an isn't even an authoritive source on what Muslims believe, which is very often highly interpretive or extra-Qur'anic in origin, only on what the Qur'an says.

4) This article isn't about what Muslims believe about Christianity, except insofar as it's relevant to the topic of Christianity, and ordered accordingly. Ought the intro to Alcohol include the fact (a lot easier to source than this dead horse) that Muslims oppose its consumption?Timothy Usher 05:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's start listing reputable scholarly sources. I encourage people on both sides of the devate to add to this list. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to add that regardless of what sources we find that may say Trinitarianism is one God or Trinitarianism is three Gods, Christianity still by definition is monotheistic, because by default Christians adhere to the belief that the Trinity is only one God. And since they believe there is only one God, the religion is monotheistic. The debate above and the sources below are concerning the accuracy of those beliefs, but that has no bearing on the definition. —Aiden 05:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I see nobody suggesting that the article should say Xty is not monotheistic. It has elements of monotheism AND elements of tritheism. The article cited below points out that every purported expression/explanation leans either too much to modalism or to tritheism - both of which are heresy. That article does not claim Xty is completely monotheistic with no elements of tritheism. Saying Xty is a "monotheistic religion" in the intro is an oversimplification and I see no reason to include it other than to have wikipedia endorse dogma --JimWae 06:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The "dogma" to which you refer is that of dictionaries, not of Christianity. Please read WP:NOR.Timothy Usher 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not recommending anything additional be put in the article - rather that something controversial not be stated as fact. WP:NOR does not apply. --JimWae 06:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR states, "An edit counts as original research if it...It provides new definitions of pre-existing terms."

An edit should also count as original research if it presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms, as you're doing with "monotheism".Timothy Usher 06:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You are doing original research on WP:NOR now? --JimWae 06:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim you just said belief in tritheism is heresy in Christianity. So even you know that according to Christianity there is only one God. That is the belief of Christianity. Now what is the definition of monotheism? Belief in one God. You are asking Christians to prove their God is not three, when that has no bearing on what they believe their God is. —Aiden 14:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat one more time: I am not advocating the article say Xty is NOT monotheistic. It is just not clear enough that it is completely monotheistic to put it in the intro. And it is not monotheism that distinguishes Xty from other religions, but the Trinity & belief that its founder was God --JimWae 15:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

All true, and we have the proper citation at the beginning of the article. Now I'm looking for a citation for the end of the article, where there is a statement that some Muslims argue that Trinitarianism is tritheism. This statement is not about Christian beliefs, but about what Muslims have stated about Christian beliefs. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Trinitarianism is not tritheism

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Explains the difference between Trinitarianism, Tritheism and Modalism.

Trinitarianism is tritheism

Missing the point (cont'd)

CTSWyneken is obviously right (per policy). The problem is not with the lack of sources; in fact there are so many sources that it's difficult to pinpoint the "most notable" ones for the various views. Time for a linguistic tally of common parlance. (I'll ignore forms like -istic and -ism which does not change the figures significantly). A Google search for "christianity" yields some 80 million hits, 1 million of which only contain the word "monotheistic", 200,000 both "monotheistic" and "polytheistic", 100,000 only "polytheistic". The latter two, together some 25% of the hits, generally deal with the Moslim criticism. One can safely say that in the US/Western world/Christianity-oriented English language monotheism has ~~become synonymous with~~ come to include the Trinity concept; criticism comes from people with a different concept called Thaweed. It's basically a translation problem. Thaweed does not translate as monotheism because monotheism encompasses the Christian concept (just like the word "god" in English generally calls up images of the God of the Christians). People who visit the English Wikipedia are supposed to speak English and understand the concepts behind the words. This is not to say we should ignore the difference. Like Sophia said, Wikipedia has a clear western-world-centric systemic bias and we should do everything we can to remove that bias. We cannot change the meaning of the word monotheism which includes the Christian concept. We can point out the difference. If this can be done in the lead, great. Otherwise we had better leave the word "monotheism" out of the lead.

(Statistically, the question whether or not Christianity is monotheistic is not a big deal. Assertions of monotheism only involve 1.25% of the hits; discussion 0.4% or less.)

All the above still needs citations but I'm sure they won't differ significantly. And I think they should not end up in the lead. If only because I am not a native speaker of English and fully aware of the all-important translation aspects here - something is "lost in translation" if we translate "monotheism" into "thaweed" - I can't imagine an authoritative English-Arabic dictionary doing that (especially not if published in a predominantly Islamic country).

Finally think about consensus and what would happen if Moslim editors were present in proportions mirroring the real world... in that case a compromise (does it exist?) or outright removal of monotheistic from the lead would be mandated by the consensus process.

Sorry if this is rambles a bit, I'm in a hurry... AvB ÷ talk 07:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

We cannot change the meaning of the word monotheism which includes the Christian concept. Exactly so. And I say again, a "neutral" point of view does not mean a porridge made up of opposing points of view. There is in fact no such thing as a truly neutral point of view: every account is biased one way or another. Wikipedia is essentially biased towards the "western" world view, which thinks that an encyclopedia assembled on the Internet by a lot of individuals working together is potentially a good or useful thing. How do we accommodate the POV that all encyclopedias must be compiled by authorized religious authorities (be they Christian, Muslim, or Hindu), or by representatives of the North Korean government, or the view that all encyclopedias which attempt to systematize knowledge are futile, or Satanic, or merely a tool of the imperialist hegemony? If you are offended by something, or know it to be inaccurate, then alter it: but if you just suspect that someone else might be offended, leave it to them (maybe they won't be); and if you can think of a subtle argument against the accepted wisdom, put it in your blog: don't stick all your half-baked high-school philosophy into the Wikipedia. Myopic Bookworm 09:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

First, let me say that I'm not committed to any particular phrasing of anything in the intro or the section on this subject. Because we have a -- lively -- discussion on this issue, I think it's important to apply Wiki's Razor. At the moment, we have one reputable, scholarly source that says point blank that Christianity is monotheistic. We have another that says Christians worship one God. We have a third that discusses the debates over the definition of the Trinity, but on a quick scan through it does not address the issue of monotheism at all. We have several Quranic verses that go at Christians for worshipping Jesus, but do not say flat out that Christians do not believe in one God. (I'm sure there must be some Islamic source that says this point blank, but no one has produced it yet). Since we have a reputable source that specifically calls Christianity monotheistic and none so far that says it is not, we should go with the direct statement as is. If we can find other quotes, then, that is a different kettle of fish, and we can go to something less direct. --CTSWyneken 12:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In the previous section, I asked for cites making either argument. I added the Stanford ref. The only takers so far are the ones you mentioned. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 13:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's right, CTSWyneken. The only source thusfar for a different definition of monotheism, such that Christianity falls outside it, are editors to this talk page. Note that we are asking for reputable scholarly sources, not just sectarian presumption. A Muslim expert on Christianity, for example, would do. However, I very much doubt that such an expert would claim Christians to be polytheists.Timothy Usher 19:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As a point of fact, the two Muslim authors I cite in the next section say precisely that it is not Muslims who make that accusation, but Christian apologists who misunderstand what Muslims are actually saying. I'm not sure if you can call them "experts on Christianity," but one is a former Christian minister who converted to Islam. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Muslim criticism and citation needed tag.

I think we're getting a little off track here. In the last section on "controversies" is the statement "Some Muslims argue that Trinitarian Christianity is a form of polytheism known as tritheism rather than monotheism.[citation needed]." So, let's see if we can find a citation from an authoritative Muslim source. We've already seen that the Qur'an does not specifically state that Christianity is tritheism. So, moving on: is there anything in the Hadith that makes that claim? Or, to speed this up: Is there an authoritative Muslim source (of any type) that we can cite here and thus remove the "citation needed" tag? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Qur'an and the Hadiths would be primary sources. We can't get in the business of interpreting scripture, or picking and choosing verses that we think are relevent to the question. We need citations to reputable scholars. For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that Muslims think Christians are polytheists, at least not in the same sense that they might think Hindus are polytheists. I think much of this belongs in the article on monotheism anyway. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's one sentence at the end of the article. I would object to putting such a statement in the introduction, but assuming we can find a citation, I think it's fair to include one sentence at the end of the article. So, does anyone have a citation to a reputable scholar? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to find a cite that says Muslims accuse Christians of tritheism. I have found cites that say Christians accuse Muslims of accusing Christians of tritheism, but that is not what Mulsims themselves say. Here's an example: "Furthermore, there is no truth in the assertion of Christian apologists and many scholars of religion that Muslim theologians have always misinterpreted the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (three in one) as a doctrine of tritheism (three gods)." Reference: Kung, Hans, "Christianity and World Religions: Dialogue with Islam," pg. 9. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Another cite making the same point: "In particular, Jesus is said to be God the Son, or the Son of God. As the Muslim questions details of this theology, the Christian characteristically forms a common explanation for our differences: He complains that Muslims do not understand the Trinity; that we are actually accusing Christians of Tritheism and other heresies." (emphasis added). This is from truereligion.org, a Muslim website.

So, I have to ask: is it verifiable that there are Muslims who say Christians are tritheistic? Or is this a Christian misunderstanding of what Muslims are saying? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Arch, we're talking about two specific changes. One, a you mentioned, would be adding a single sentence to the effec of "Some Muslims believe that Christianity is not fully monotheistic". This is probably not terribly controversial, and it can be supported easily by citations. The other related change is to soften the intro so that it merely says that Christianity is generally seen as being monotheistic, particularly by Christians. This has been attempted, leading only to revert wars. --Alienus 15:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You used five tildes instead of four, so I had to sign your name. We have a cite for the intro, so I see no need to soften the intro. I can live with "Christians profess monotheism," though. I've just begun to look into this, but I haven't yet found a reference to a Muslim calling Christianity tritheistic— in fact, I keep finding references to Muslims denying making the charge of tritheism. "Not fully monotheistic" is a slightly different statement, it could simply mean they believe the Trinity to be incompatible with monotheism rather than charging Christians with tritheism, so I'll have to look at the link you provided. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I rephrased the sentence so that it's halfway between the original and Alienus' proposal. I added two citations: the one from Alienus, which at least associates trinitarianism with polytheism, and the one by Dr. Miller, who argues that Christian apologists are misrepresenting Muslims by using the word "tritheism." That should (I hope) cover a range of Muslim responses. Now to find the other three citations needed as listed in the next section. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the bad sig. I made an attempt at implementing your suggestion for the first sentence. What do you think? Al 18:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think "a religion whose adherents profess monotheism" is wordy and a little awkward. Perhaps as a separate sentence? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was terrible. Hedges inevitably add complexity to text. This hedge simply isn't justified according to the dictionary definition of monotheism, which no one has attempted to rebut, instead proceeding to argue from their own definitions as if nothing had happened.Timothy Usher 19:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As Fishhead has suggested, why not "Most Christians believe in one God subsisting in three Persons—a monotheistic belief called "Trinitarianism" Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Once we've accepted the obvious truth that Christianity is monotheistic, what's the point in adding trinitarianism to the intro? It already figures very prominently in the article.

This whole debate boils down to, some editors assert that the definition of "monotheism" should be changed so as to disinclude trinitarianism. That's original research. Then, they say, okay, let's compromise. But compromising verifiable fact with original research is unneccessary and undesirable, and violates WP policy.Timothy Usher 19:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, Trinitarianism is a unique form of Abrahamic monotheism. Judaism, Samaritanism and Islam do not believe that God is Triune. I do think that this is an important distinction. The proposal acknowledges a difference within monotheism, without denying that Christianity is monotheistic. Of course, if we do this, we'll also have to acknowledge nontrinitarian Christians as well. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, you were right about it being a matter of definition. Monotheism is the belief in one God. But I have again changed my mind about whether its right to say in the article, "Christianity is monotheistic". Here's why: we don't know what Christians believe. We only know what they say they believe. Therefore, this everyone can agree is correct: Christianity is a religion whose adherants profess monotheism but Christianity is a monotheistic religion is both contradicted by Muslims, who say it isn't, and something that is impossible to know, as it requires knowing what is in the hearts of Christians, what they trully believe, as opposed to what they profess to belief. Please note, monotheism is not defined as "the profession of belief" but as believing. Drogo Underburrow 19:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, I very much appreciate your concession of that point. It is, as you say, and as Tom noted, rare on WP.

However, we now face the question, if someone claims to believe something, can we say that they really believe it without qualification? In most cases, we can, and do. "Muslims believe...", for example, is absolutely uncontroversial in Islam-related articles (where, despite all the sound and fury, I've seen precisely none of the editors who'd like to rep "Muslim opinion" here). No one asks, "how do we know they really believe it?"

In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, we presume that people believe what they claim to believe and report it as such, without epistomological paroxysms as per MonkeySage.

We also have not seen reliable scholarly sources, Muslim or otherwise, claiming that Christianity is not monotheistic. Generic "Muslim opinion" about what Christians beleive isn't expert opinion. Moreover, what reputable Muslim opinion we have been made aware of, including the Qur'an, does not say that Christians are polytheists.Timothy Usher 19:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Profess monotheism" is fine, but we can do it less awkwardly than a "religion whose adherants." Something like this:

"Christianity is an Abrahamic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recounted in the New Testament. Most Christians profess a form of monotheism called trinitarianism, while others are nontrinitarian. Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah, and thus refer to him as Jesus Christ. With an estimated 2.1 billion adherents in 2001, Christianity is the world's largest religion."

Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right that the text was a bit awkward. However, saying that trinitarianism is monotheistic is taking the Christian POV while slamming the Islamic one. How about, "Christians generally support trinitarianism, which is considered a form of monotheism, and believe Jesus to be..." Al 20:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

First, it makes it sound like non-trinitarians aren't monotheists. Secondly, the intro isn't the place to cover these doctrinal disputes. Finally, there's no reason to do so, except to satisfy the already thoroughly-rebutted arguments presented on this page.Timothy Usher 19:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Where were you last January when we started to work out the third paragraph of Jesus ? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 22:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if anyone would like to contend that trinitarianism isn't monotheistic, feel free to prove wrong the well referenced introduction we have now. Homestarmy 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You do not need expert opinion, if in general, 1.2 billion people think something, it is worth note. This is not a science, there are no well accepted breakthroughs in religion. Every person is just as credible as another. You cannot say that the Pope knows more about what exists and what really is what than the average adherent of Buddhism, since the scientific method is not applied to religion. Because a physicist's beliefs can be tried, a PhD in quantum physics is more reputable on the electron than your average student. There is no need to cite an expert on Christianity to state that Muslims have one view or another about Christianity.

The arguments made on this page by the "not saying Christianity is monotheistic outright" side have not been rebutted at all. Our arguments have been that it is POV to simply state that Christianity is monotheistic in the presence of a large group of people's opinion that it is not. The rebuttal has been that Christianity is monotheistic, not that it is NPOV to simply state the Christians' opinion as fact. As part of WP:NPOV, we cannot choose sides. No one has successfully argued against that.

KV 17:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As part of WP:V, we cannot choose a side that flies in the face of verified facts, facts which the references so far in the article demonstrate uneqivocally. I might note that none of them seemed interested in giving the Muslim opinion any weight whatsoever, almost as if the Muslim opinion wasn't authoritative on the subject. Homestarmy 16:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not the scientific method, but there are recognized authorities on religion as well: on the religious side, you have theologians and clergy (both Christian and Muslim and anyone else who has commented); on the secular side, you have PhD's in the sociology of religion, philosophy of religion and the like. No, you can't broadly say that the Pope knows more about what exists than the average Buddhist, but you can definitely say that the Pope is a more credible source on Christian (or at least Catholic) beliefs than the Buddhist is, and that the Buddhist is a more credible source on Buddhist beliefs than the pope is. To say that "every person is just as credible as another" is to violate WP:RS. You say, "there is no need to cite an expert on Christianity to state that Muslims have one view or another about Christianity." True, but we do need to cite a verifiable and reliable Muslim authority. True, we cannot choose sides. We can only cite reliable, verifiable sources. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 22:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

^ Religions by Adherents Adherents.com.

[1] Religions by Adherents Adherents.com.

[1]